Tag: International

  • To ‘think like a lawyer’: some thoughts on the pedagogy of international law

    To ‘think like a lawyer’: some thoughts on the pedagogy of international law

    by Paolo Amorosa & Sebastián Machado

    Most law professors face a similar challenge when designing their courses: how to explain to students the enduring gap between what the law says and how it functions in reality. One of the foundational assumptions of legal education is that law is more than just the written rules found in statutes, bills, or constitutions. Without an understanding of how these rules influence a judge’s decision-making, they remain little more than pretty playthings: abstract ideas with no real-world impact. This realist approach in domestic legal education helps bridge the divide between legal theory and practice; the same arguments might apply in most disciplines and fields with a similar divide between theory and practice. If you can examine a rule and confidently predict how it will be applied, you are engaging in the most basic form of legal research. But consider a legal system without a centralised rule-making authority or a single, binding interpreter – no supreme legislature or final court to settle disputes definitively. This is the reality of international law. While there are many judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, there is no universal, mandatory forum for resolving disputes, and most conflicts never reach a formal judgment. Instead, states, international organizations, and individuals all contribute to shaping the rules by advocating for their preferred interpretations, hoping to sway the broader consensus. International lawyers refer to this evolving consensus as the ‘invisible college of international lawyers’, a term that captures the discipline’s informal, socially constructed boundaries. In essence, international law is what international lawyers do.

    Teaching international law, then, comes with an added layer of complexity: the lack of formal structures undermines legal certainty. Every international lawyer, to some degree, can influence the field. Through journal articles, blog posts, social media debates, or legal practice, they argue for their version of the correct interpretation of a rule. Academics may even challenge established meanings, making persuasive cases that defy the literal text of foundational documents like the UN Charter.

    This is why international lawyers often say that the law is made, not found. Unlike domestic legal systems, where rules are either codified (as in civil law) or derived from judicial precedent (as in common law), international law is fundamentally discursive. This creates a twofold problem. First, without an authoritative interpreter, there is no clear way to separate theory from practice. A legal advisor in a Foreign Ministry might frame a state’s actions as part of a new trend that modifies a rule (such as pre-emptive self-defense), while others denounce it as a violation (like Article 51 of the UN Charter). In this environment, the line between legal theory and practice dissolves. Second, with no objective boundaries to the discipline, the distinction between mainstream international law and critical approaches collapses. What remains is the professor’s choice: which version of the law to teach.

    Yet teaching international law does not require taking a stance on the theory-practice divide, because that divide is not inherent to the discipline. Law professors are not bound by the same rigid distinctions as, say, natural scientists, who must separate theoretical models from empirical observation. Instead, legal education can bypass this dichotomy entirely by focusing on the deeper conditions that shape how we understand both theory and practice. Rather than treating practice as a constraint on theory, students can learn to apply theoretical insights pragmatically. This approach allows law schools to teach practical skills without forcing an artificial separation between legal thought and legal action, following larger trends in pedagogical training outside legal academia.

    Still, many international law professors struggle with curriculum design because of these perceived divides. On one hand, students must master a baseline of doctrinal knowledge to enter legal practice. On the other, mere knowledge acquisition is not enough – students must also develop the ability to analyse, synthesise, and critically evaluate legal arguments. A well-rounded legal education should cultivate these higher-order skills, enabling students to engage in meta-cognitive reflection about the law they are learning.

    Moreover, there is no strong evidence that ‘thinking like a lawyer’ is a unique cognitive skill. Legal reasoning shares much with other forms of reasoning, meaning that better teaching methods alone will not necessarily produce better lawyers. Instead, what matters is equipping students with evaluative tools to interpret and refine legal arguments. By treating core legal knowledge as a foundation rather than a rigid boundary, and critical thinking as a method for engaging with that knowledge, the supposed divide between mainstream and critical approaches begins to fade.

    The same logic applies to the theory-practice debate. The tension between these approaches persists only if we assume they are mutually exclusive. Law schools often face criticism from practitioners who argue that graduates lack practical skills, while academics defend the importance of theoretical training. But must these roles be in conflict?

    Perhaps the real issue in international law is not the existence of these divides, but our insistence on treating them as inevitable. If there is little evidence that ‘thinking like a lawyer’ is a distinct cognitive skill, there is even less reason to impose it as a rigid framework for international legal education. Instead, we might focus on cultivating adaptable, reflective practitioners who can navigate both theory and practice – not as opposing forces, but as complementary dimensions of the same discipline. This is a lesson relevant for many if not all professional disciplines.

    Sebastian Machado Ramírez is Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Helsinki, where he works on the PRIVIGO project examining private governance and international law. He holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, where his dissertation analyzed interpretive approaches in the law governing the use of force.

    Paolo Amorosa is University Lecturer in International Law at the University of Helsinki. He holds a PhD from the same institution and specializes in the history and theory of international law and human rights. His monograph Rewriting the History of the Law of Nations (OUP 2019) critically re-examines the ideological foundations of international law’s canon.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • International Graduates and the New Employability Challenge

    International Graduates and the New Employability Challenge

    • By Louise Nicol, Founder of Asia Careers Group.

    As global economies come under increasing strain from technological disruption, demographic change and tightening labour markets, one long-held assumption is starting to fray: that an overseas degree guarantees stronger employment outcomes for international graduates returning home. For many years, particularly across Asia, this belief underpinned the value proposition of international education. But new data suggests that this premium is beginning to erode – not because domestic education is closing the gap, but because international graduates are being left to navigate the final step of their journey alone.

    Recent analysis from the Asia Careers Group (ACG), drawing on the outcomes of over 20,000 international graduates from UK and Australian universities who returned to China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore since 2015, offers critical insights. The headline message is that while international graduates continue to outperform their domestically educated peers in many cases, the margin is narrowing. The problem is not the quality of education delivered overseas, but the lack of structured support that enables these students to transition into meaningful employment in their home markets. For families across Asia making significant financial sacrifices to send their children abroad, the return on investment increasingly hinges not just on the degree earned, but on the job secured afterwards. For universities in the UK and other major host countries, international graduate outcomes are no longer just a reputational concern – they are becoming central to the long-term sustainability of international recruitment strategies.

    China’s story illustrates the shifting terrain. For decades, foreign-educated Chinese graduates enjoyed a clear employment advantage in China’s urban job markets. Overseas qualifications, English fluency and global experience were seen as major assets. But just before the pandemic, as outbound numbers surged and China’s youth unemployment crisis deepened, that edge started to dull. The term ‘Sea Turtles’ (or haigui) came to represent the growing number of returnees entering an already saturated labour market, combined with employer preference for local experience, meant that the haigui label no longer guaranteed success.

    By 2020, full-time employment among returnees had dropped below 30% – lower than the domestic graduate average for the first time. And yet, recovery has followed. In 2023-24, nearly 50% of internationally educated Chinese graduates secured full-time employment within six months of graduation, while only 30% of their domestically educated peers did the same. Despite mounting geopolitical pressure and a sluggish economy, UK and Australian degrees remain a lever of upward mobility, so long as students are able to connect their education to employment.

    India reveals the outsized influence of immigration policy on international graduate outcomes. Following the withdrawal of post-study work rights by the UK government in 2012, Indian students returning home with UK degrees struggled to compete in the domestic job market. The lack of international work experience meant they were often indistinguishable from their peers who had remained in India. When post-study work rights were reinstated in 2019, a marked improvement followed. By 2022, nearly 65% of Indian returnees were in full-time employment within six months, well ahead of the national average. However, this improvement has not held.

    Since 2023, the data shows another downward trend. While the Graduate Route remains technically available, it has not been accompanied by sufficient careers guidance, reintegration support, or India-facing employer engagement. As a result, many students—even those who stay on to work in the UK for a period—struggle to reconnect with Indian employers when they return. Without a deliberate, structured transition, the employability premium fades.

    Malaysia presents a more complex picture. ACG data from 2010 to 2021 show that full-time employment for returnees dropped from nearly 80% to just over 30%. By contrast, Ministry of Education and Khazanah Research Institute data suggest that domestic graduate outcomes have remained relatively flat, hovering around 45–50%. On the surface, this looks like a convergence, but not for the right reasons. Employment outcomes for returnees have worsened, rather than improved, for domestic graduates. And yet when salary data is introduced, the story changes. International graduates continue to command significantly higher incomes, particularly those with UK and Australian degrees. ACG’s analysis and national labour statistics both show a clear premium: returnees are more likely to earn over RM6,000, while 65% of domestic graduates earn under RM2,000. This suggests that international education still opens doors to higher-level and better-paid roles—but only once graduates overcome the initial hurdle of securing employment. Without local support networks and targeted CIAG, many returnees remain stranded at the starting line.

    Singapore’s system is notable for its transparency, with robust graduate employment data published annually. Even so, ACG’s data shows that internationally educated Singaporean returnees are now significantly less likely to secure full-time roles than their locally educated peers. Between 2013 and 2023, employment for returnees fell from over 80% to just above 40%, while domestic graduate outcomes stayed consistently above 75%. But this is less a judgement on the quality of international education than a reflection of systems misalignment. Many Singaporeans now study abroad at the postgraduate level in destinations or fields that don’t map neatly onto Singapore’s structured graduate pathways, especially in the public sector. Some never return. Others miss out on local graduate schemes or lack the mentoring and guidance necessary to re-enter the domestic market. These are not less capable graduates – they are structurally unsupported.

    The implications for UK higher education institutions and policymakers are profound. Graduate outcomes for international students returning home have long been neglected in favour of compliance metrics, application numbers, and league table performance. But if we are to retain our position as a leading destination for international students, we must confront a simple truth: it is no longer enough to bring students in, deliver a quality education, and send them on their way. We must know what happens next. That means tracking international graduate outcomes systematically, forging deep partnerships with employers in key source countries, and embedding culturally tailored careers support into the student journey – not as an add-on, but as core infrastructure. This also means preparing students for re-entry from the moment they arrive, rather than reacting after they leave.

    Governments in destination countries must play their part too. That includes aligning visa and migration policy with long-term employability outcomes, ensuring post-study work routes remain stable and transparent, and avoiding knee-jerk compliance changes that disrupt student confidence. The UK, in particular, must make good on the promise of the Graduate Route by working with universities to ensure that work experience gained in the UK translates into lasting employability abroad. We should also consider incentivising institutions to track and support international graduate success, just as we are increasingly focused on domestic outcomes.

    And finally, for students and families, the message is clear: an international degree can still unlock opportunity, but it is not a guarantee. The most successful graduates are those who receive support tailored to their return journey—those with access to informed advice, strong alumni networks, and employer connections in their home country. Without these, the international education premium – once considered automatic – is slipping.

    References

    1. Asia Careers Group (ACG). Proprietary international graduate outcomes tracking data, 2015–2024.
    2. India Skills Report (ISR). Confederation of Indian Industry, Wheebox, and Taggd, various years.
    3. Ministry of Education, Malaysia & Khazanah Research Institute (KRI). Graduate Tracer Study and labour market reports, 2010–2021.
    4. Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM). Monthly and graduate salary distribution reports.
    5. Ministry of Education, Singapore. Graduate Employment Survey (GES), 2013–2023.
    6. UK Home Office & Migration Advisory Committee. Graduate Route Policy Review, 2024.
    7. Chinese Ministry of Education (MoE) and independent think tank analysis of returnee graduate outcomes (Haigui commentary), various sources.

    Source link

  • Harnessing Intercultural Expertise in an International Classroom – Faculty Focus

    Harnessing Intercultural Expertise in an International Classroom – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Harnessing Intercultural Expertise in an International Classroom – Faculty Focus

    Harnessing Intercultural Expertise in an International Classroom – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Malvern International partners with Liverpool Hope University

    Malvern International partners with Liverpool Hope University

    The deal encompasses pathway and pre-master’s programs from the upcoming Liverpool Hope University International Study Centre, which will be based at the university’s Hope Park Campus.

    Claire Ozanne, vice-chancellor and rector at Liverpool Hope University, said the new study centre will form an “exciting and important part” of the institution’s international strategy – one that would “further enhance our position as a global university and one that has an inclusive approach to education”.

    “International students and the rich diversity of ideas and experiences they bring to our campuses hugely enhance the academic experience for all of our students,” she added.

    Malvern International said that through the partnership, students attending the centre can expect to find a challenging curriculum, set to enhance their English language proficiency and the skills to help them successfully transition into university life.

    International students and the rich diversity of ideas and experiences they bring to our campuses hugely enhance the academic experience for all of our students
    Claire Ozanne, Liverpool Hope University

    Ashleigh Veres, senior director, university recruitment and partnerships at Malvern International, said that the deal marked “an important step forward and a proud moment for Malvern as we continue to grow and diversify our pathways division, scaling up our capabilities to deliver exceptional services that benefit both universities and students”.

    She added: “We are delighted to partner with Liverpool Hope University, an institution renowned for its excellent student satisfaction and commitment to academic excellence. Together, we are dedicated to providing transformative opportunities for students while expanding the University’s global reach and impact.” 

    Source link

  • London Mayor slams proposed international tuition fee levy

    London Mayor slams proposed international tuition fee levy

    In a keynote address earlier this week at Imperial Global Ghana – Imperial College London’s overseas branch campus in Accra – Sadiq Khan warned that proposals for a new levy on international university fees would hit the UK’s finances hard, describing the policy as “an act of immense economic self-harm”.

    The UK government is currently considering a new levy on income that English universities generate from international students as part of its immigration whitepaper, which could not only put students off coming  from overseas but also create a substantial extra financial burden for already stretched universities.

    International students contribute about £12.5 billion to London, and another £55bn to the national economy every year, Khan pointed out. For this reason, the government should not make it difficult for these students to study in the UK, Khan said at the event – which formed part of his trade mission to Ghana.

    With 5% of students in London’s higher education institutions coming from Africa, Khan stressed the need to ensure that international students are not frustrated. 

    “Closing our economy to global talent would be an act of immense economic self-harm. One that would slow down growth and leave working people in Britain worse off than before. At a time when President Trump is attacking international students, we should be welcoming them,” he added.

    Khan said the international students also bring a longer-term labour market value, as many stay after their studies to work in key economic sectors from tech and AI to finance and creative industries. For this reason, he disagreed with the view that, “we should pull up the drawbridge to international students or punish universities that choose to welcome people from around the world”.

    On Imperial College opening up a hub in Ghana, he said London is ready to contribute to the development effort of Ghana, “not as a patron, but as a partner. In a genuinely reciprocal relationship that brings benefits to us both”.

    President Trump is attacking international students, we should be welcoming them
    Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London

    The vice-chancellor of the University of Ghana, Nana Aba Appiah Amfo, said the university is committed to providing to its  students with a transformative experience that goes beyond the classroom to nurture innovation, leadership and practical problem solving, adding that “this commitment is rooted in our strategic plan, which prioritises student success, impactful research and strategic partners”.

    “One such partnership, rich in promise and results, is with Imperial College London. What began as a collaboration between two researchers has evolved into a university-wide alliance, advancing work in climate change, diagnostics, and entrepreneurship. It is a powerful model of what mutual trust and shared purpose can achieve,” Amfo added.

    She said the Student Venture Support Programme has become the flagship agenda of the partnership which was launched in 2022 with the Imperial College and is  equipping students with skills, mentoring and funding to turn ideas into viable ventures. 

    To date, it has supported over 400 students and more than 115 startups, spanning four universities across Ghana.

    Despite Khan’s strong opposition to the levy, it looks likely to go ahead.

    At last week’s BUILA conference, skills minister Jacqui Smith doubled down on the need for the levy, saying it would reinforce public confidence in the UK’s international education sector.

    Source link

  • ‘Man versus machine’ up for debate at the International Internship Conference

    ‘Man versus machine’ up for debate at the International Internship Conference

    Welcoming delegates with a lyric from Minnesotan, Bob Dylan, International Internship Network founder and conference organiser, Matt Byrnes, set a reflective tone: “Come in… I’ll give you shelter from the storm.” 

    “We’re in the midst of a storm in post-secondary education,” explained Byrnes, who believes that IIC can offer colleagues a refuge from the onsalught on recent policy decisions that are impacting international education globally.

    “IIC fosters an environment of tranquillity and confidence, where attendees explore study abroad solutions and partnerships that benefit their institutions and students,” he said.

    Attendees from across the globe gathered to engage in sessions that ranged from employer site visits to focused panels and social receptions. Delegates included international internship providers, faculty, government representatives, employers, and students.

    Central to the program was the conference’s annual debate. This year’s square off was entitled ‘Man vs Machine’ and tackled questions surrounding AI’s role in internship design and delivery. Moderated by The PIE‘s Maureen Manning, the session featured Kate Moore, principal and co-founder of the Global Career Center (GCC), Balaji Krishnan, vice provost at the University of Memphis, Greg Holz, assistant director for global engagement at the Univerity of Central Missouri, and Rishab Malhotra, founder and CEO of AIDO.

    The panellists brought diverse perspectives, from AI ethics and corporate supervision to startup innovation and campus life. They debated how technology can support rather than supplant the human experience in relation to international expeiences.

    Krishnan emphasised the importance of ethical frameworks in guiding AI development, warning against unchecked reliance on algorithmic tools without human oversight. Malhotra noted that while artificial intelligence can optimise logistics and placement processes, it cannot replicate human empathy or intercultural sensitivity – qualities central to global internships. Meanwhile, Holz offered a perspective from the corporate side, suggesting that when used thoughtfully, AI can streamline operations and free up supervisors to provide more meaningful mentorships. Moore closed by framing technology as an enabler rather than a replacement; a tool, not a teacher.

    These discussions reflected a core concern echoed throughout the conference: how to maintain the integrity and purpose of internships while leveraging digital tools to scale access and impact.

    Byrnes commented on the relevance of the conference’s direction: “IIC’s focus on the future of internships and technology is on point. At a time when academia is pivoting to prepare students for how AI is transforming the workplace, IIC attendees return to their campuses with much more knowledge about emerging technologies and how they can evolve internship programs to meet the needs of their students.”

    The event also highlighted the important role of government partnerships in advancing work-integrated learning. International Experience Canada (IEC), one of the central partners of the conference, stated: “We congratulate IIC for its role as a leading organisation in advancing dialogue and partnerships on international experiential education, work-integrated learning and internships, and as one of IEC’s newest recognised organisation partners.”

    Tech knowledge alone is not enough. We must support students to think critically, navigate complexity, and adapt with agility
    Maria Angeles Fernandes Lopez, Universidad de Camilo Jose Cela

    Throughout the three-day event, many delegates indicated to the PIE that it is not a question of whether technology will shape the future of internships, but rather how to ensure that these tools enhance, not eclipse, the human dimensions of learning: mentorship, reflection, and cross-cultural understanding.

    “Tech knowledge alone is not enough. We must support students to think critically, navigate complexity, and adapt with agility,” asserted Maria Angeles Fernandes Lopez, vice rector at Universidad de Camilo Jose Cela, the host institution for the IIC in 2026. At the passing of the torch ceremony at the conclusion of the conference, Byrnes and Lopez indicated their hope to build on the momentum and dialogue sparked in Minneapolis on the intersection between technology and humanity.

    Source link

  • NZ debuts growth plan as it eyes 35k more international students

    NZ debuts growth plan as it eyes 35k more international students

    • New Zealand relaxes some immigration rules – including upping the number of hours overseas students can work outside of their studies – in its bid to attract more international students
    • Immigration New Zealand unveils ambitious plan to tempt 35,000 more international students to the country by 2034
    • Government shines light on economic benefits of international education, but says it will keep an eye on education quality and the impact on local communities as the sector grows

    The New Zealand government has launched the International Education Going for Growth plan, as part of its broader strategy to increase international student enrolments from 83,700 in 2024 to 119,000 by 2034, and double the sector’s value from NZ$3.6 billion ( £1.60 billion) to NZ$7.2 billion (£3.20 billion). 

    On Monday, Immigration New Zealand announced changes to immigration rules to help the country “attract more international students, maintain high education standards, and manage immigration risks”.

    On November 3 this year, INZ will implement changes to increase the permitted work hours for eligible study visa holders from 20 to 25 hours per week, and extend in-study work rights to all tertiary students enrolled in approved exchange or study abroad programs, including those on one-semester courses.

    As per data published by INZ, currently 40,987 study visa holders have in-study work rights with 29,790 set to expire on or before March 31 2026, with the remaining 11,197 visas expected to lapse after that date.

    The new rules on work hours will apply only to students who have been granted a visa from November 3 onward, meaning those with existing visas limited to 20 hours per week will need to reapply to avail the increased allowance.

    On average in 2024, an international student spent NZ$45,000 across the year. That means… ultimately more jobs being created
    Erica Stanford, New Zealand education minister

    “This (increase in work hours) will apply to all new student visas granted from that date, even if the application was submitted earlier,” read a statement by INZ. 

    “If you already have a student visa with a 20-hour work limit and want to work up to 25 hours, you will need to apply for a variation of conditions or a new student visa. The relevant immigration fees will apply.”

    While international students in years 12 and 13 are eligible under the new rules, they will still be required to obtain both parental and school permission to work during the academic year, even with the increased limit of 25 hours per week. 

    Moreover, international graduates who do not qualify for post-study work rights may soon have access to a short-duration work visa of up to six months, giving them time to seek employment in their field under the Accredited Employer Work Visa pathway.

    The government is also investigating how to make it easier for students to apply for multi-year visas.

    “International education is one of our largest exports, injecting NZ$3.6 billion into our economy in 2024. It also provides opportunities for research, strengthening trade and people-to-people connections, which are important to drive investment, productivity and innovation in New Zealand,” read a statement by education minister, Erica Stanford. 

    “On average in 2024, an international student spent NZ$45,000 across the year. That means more visits to our cafes and restaurants, more people visiting our iconic attractions and ultimately more jobs being created.”

    As per data released by Education New Zealand, international enrolments are inching toward pre-Covid levels, with 2024 figures (83,425) now reaching 72% of the 2019 total of 115,705.

    According to ENZ chief executive Amanda Malu, while China and India remain New Zealand’s two largest international student markets, accounting for 34% and 14% of enrolments respectively, they are followed by Japan (9%), South Korea (4%), Thailand (3%), the United States (3%), Germany (3%), the Philippines (3%), and Sri Lanka (3%)

    It’s important to strike the right balance between increasing student numbers, maintaining the quality of education, and managing broader impacts on New Zealanders
    Erica Stanford, New Zealand education minister

    New Zealand wants to “supercharge” this rising momentum and position New Zealand as the destination of choice for international students, according to Stanford. 

    This includes increasing awareness of New Zealand as a study destination from 38% in 2024 to 44% by 2034, and raising the proportion of prospective students who rank the country among their top three study choices from 18% to 22% over the same period.

    “To achieve our ambitious target, we’re taking a considered and strategic approach. It’s important to strike the right balance between increasing student numbers, maintaining the quality of education, and managing broader impacts on New Zealanders. Our plan will deliver that,” stated Stanford. 

    Source link

  • Moody’s: Trump’s tough international student policies could hit some colleges hard

    Moody’s: Trump’s tough international student policies could hit some colleges hard

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The Trump administration’s restrictive policies for international students present a financial risk for many U.S. colleges by potentially deterring them from enrolling, Moody’s analysts said in a recent report. 
    • Analysts pointed to visa disruptions, increased scrutiny of social media accounts, changes to deportation rules, and recent travel bans and restrictions to the U.S. from 19 countries. The Trump administration has also created confusion around visas for Chinese students, who account for nearly a quarter of international students.
    • While the impact on upcoming academic terms remains unclear, the changing policies are “diminishing the perception of the US as a prime destination for higher education,” the analysts said.

    Dive Insight:

    Colleges have been bracing for potential revenue and enrollment hits since the second Trump administration quickly struck an aggressive approach to immigration and international students. 

    When the administration moved to bar Harvard University from enrolling international students, the private institution sought and won a court order temporarily blocking the move the next day. 

    The ongoing legal spat underscores just how critical international enrollment is for the Ivy League university. In the 2024-25 academic year, Harvard’s roughly 6,800 foreign students made up 27.2% of the university’s total student body.  

    And just this week, George Washington University cited, among other federal moves, a slowdown in visa processing and President Donald Trump’s travel bans when explaining the need for painful budget measures, including possible layoffs. 

    International students make up over 20% of enrollment at 11% of the colleges rated by Moody’s. But that figure may understate the financial impact of lower international enrollment. 

    Foreign students typically pay full tuition and fees at colleges, noted Moody’s analysts Debra Roane, vice president and senior credit officer, and Emily Raimes, associate managing director. And they do so at a time when the ranks of traditional-age college students are projected to decline significantly in the coming years. 

    “Universities intending to fill the gap with more international students may fall short,” Roane and Raimes said in the report. 

    The analysts ran a stress test on colleges rated by Moody’s to look at the financial impact of international student enrollment declines. Given a 10% drop in international enrollment, 54 out 392 institutions would suffer a hit to a measure of their operating performance of at least half a percentage point. Seven of those colleges would see those margins decrease by two to eight percentage points. 

    With a 20% drop in international enrollment, 130 colleges would lose at least half a percentage point from their margins, and 18 among them would lose two to eight points. Those with already low margins could face “significant financial stress,” Roane and Raimes said. 

    The analysts noted, however, that highly selective colleges or those with considerable financial reserves might “better absorb the impacts by adjusting operations or increasing domestic enrollment.” Other prominent colleges might be able to mitigate international student declines through alternative revenue sources like fundraising and endowment spending.

    But others could have a much tougher time. Roane and Raimes pointed to specialty institutions, such as arts colleges — which are already facing a tough environment — whose student bodies can be over 30% international.

    Source link

  • Defining the value of the UK’s international research partnerships

    Defining the value of the UK’s international research partnerships

    It might not be news that the UK research sector is strikingly international, but the scale of our global collaboration is striking – and it’s growing.

    Over 60 per cent of Russell Group academics’ publications involved an international co-author in 2023, 16 per cent higher than in 2019, and in 2022 this proportion was higher for UK academics than any of our global competitors. Pooling ideas and talent makes for better research and more innovation, so supporting them to do more matters deeply to researchers – as our universities are well aware, given their own longstanding global connections.

    International collaboration matters for the UK at large too, helping us tackle shared challenges and forming a large part of our global contribution. In a more uncertain world, protecting and growing research collaborations is becoming more important – complementing the government’s efforts to deepen links with the EU, protect ties with the US, and build relationships in India.

    These initiatives are bound up with both security and growth. This is no accident: a strong economy is the route to creating jobs and supporting public services. We have always argued that international university partnerships should be part of the wider offer to global investors and trade partners, but we need to find new ways to demonstrate their value.

    To that end, Jisc has done new analysis for the Russell Group looking at the scale and value of international research partnerships. Jisc’s unique data-matching analysis of UK, US and EU patent data held by the European Patents Office covers over 30 years of international collaboration in patent applications. The data identifies partnerships that UK institutions hold with both international companies and universities.

    It’s booming

    So what did we learn? Jisc’s analysis shows the proportion of patents co-filed by UK universities and an international partner grew from 12 per cent in 2000 to 22 per cent in 2022. It also found a remarkably high share of collaborations with international businesses, not just fellow academics: 43 per cent of co-filings since 2018 were with an overseas company and 36 per cent with a university abroad.

    Since 2018, the data shows UK universities filed over 100 EU, US and UK patents with international partners every year. The analysis also allows us to see individual patents, not just numbers, so we can understand how impactful this work is not just to academic excellence, but to society. For example:

    • the world’s first gene therapy for adults with severe haemophilia A, from pioneering research between University College London and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in the US
    • a new type of gene therapy from Newcastle University and the University of Heidelberg in Germany, which can help to protect and strengthen muscles in people with muscular dystrophy
    • improvements to machine-learning models by the University of Edinburgh and University of Manchester with Toyota in Japan – refining the ability to interpret images, a step on the way to driverless cars.

    These projects, and many more of their kind, demonstrate the cutting-edge R&D that can underpin the government’s growth mission, industrial strategy and NHS ambitions. Jisc’s analysis therefore suggests that to make the most of universities’ strengths, and secure a global advantage for the UK, support for both home-grown innovation and high-value overseas collaborations will be crucial.

    Potential for even more

    This includes additional support for the work universities do with and for businesses, in sectors like clean energy and advanced manufacturing. Academics and innovators can do much of this themselves, but government can help by working with us to deliver a stable platform to build on including reliable funding streams, improved incentives for SME-university collaboration and a long-term strategy for industrial renewal.

    We also need a strategic focus on higher education’s financial sustainability, so universities can maximise the impact of the £86bn government is committing to R&D over the next few years and support plans for economic growth and public service improvement.

    It also means maintaining a supportive, stable and cost-effective visa system for staff and students – further expanding the commitments already made on building global talent pathways – so UK universities can attract and educate our future academics, innovators and collaborators, as well as securing important cross-subsidies for research and teaching. A strategic approach to skills and infrastructure across the UK would complement this, ensuring all nations and regions can benefit.

    Finally, building the right platform for international collaboration means backing stable, flexible routes for academics and innovators to work together. UKRI’s work to develop lead agency agreements with counterparts in other countries has been a positive and warmly-welcomed example. Above all, however, our relationship with the world’s largest international collaborative programme for R&D – Horizon Europe, and its successor Framework Programme 10 – will be vital.

    We’re currently awaiting the European Commission’s official “first draft” for FP10. We know it will be a standalone programme with a research and innovation focus, which is very reassuring. At the moment, Horizon Europe is providing more collaborative research opportunities than any one country can alone, as well as helping UK universities attract top researchers. Universities are working hard to boost Horizon participation, taking the lead in European Research Council Advanced Grant wins in 2024, and nurturing the encouraging green shoots in the collaborative Pillar II. Keeping this going is vital for global collaborations which contribute so much to our, and our partners’, economic and societal progress.

    Researchers need certainty so they can rely on a shared long-term framework when building collaborations. The more open FP10 is to like-minded countries, and the more positive the UK is about association early on, the more confidence academics can be in continuing – and indeed expanding – invaluable international partnerships.

    Source link