The release of HESA student data is an interesting time for those of us working in and around postgrad, because we finally get a semblance of the sector-wide coverage our undergrad colleagues are provided by UCAS.
Albeit with a year or so of lag.
There is lots to say about the size and shape of the sector as it was in 2024-25 and DK has said much of it already. A lot of the focus is on international recruitment for postgraduate taught courses.
But this year, there’s something curious happening for postgraduate research too.
When postgraduate research isn’t a PhD
The 2024-25 academic year saw a 10 per cent fall in new non-EU entrants to postgraduate taught programmes; a figure that will surprise few of us with an eye on international student policy and pipelines in recent years.
But 2024-25 also saw a 28 per cent rise in new non-EU entrants to postgraduate research programmes, a figure that seems very surprising, but may not be if (like me) you’ve been following a certain story.
Because none of this international PGR growth is happening at PhD level (that’s flat). Instead, it’s all in the “Other postgraduate research” category – where 1,660 international student entrants became 5,180 in 2024-25.
The obvious conclusion is that a lot, or most of, this is recruitment to Master of Research (MRes) programmes. Wonkhe and others have observed some of the self-appointed “consultants” extolling the virtues of the MRes on social media and I can confirm that Keystone Education Group platforms like FindAMasters saw interest in MRes degrees (relative to other types) up 200 per cent year-on-year during 2024 compared with 2023.
Is this bad? It(s) depend(ent)s
If the drop in taught masters recruitment is substantially driven by the January 2024 ban on student dependent visa for those programmes (it is) then it might be reasonable to assume that the rise in research masters recruitment is driven by the same.
Because (somewhat oddly and inexplicably in my opinion) said ban does not cover research masters, which some (though not all) MRes are. And this “dependent friendly” element is exactly the kind of virtue those very helpful people on social media extol.
So, is this a problem? Yes and no.
But the around 27,000 fewer international students who might otherwise have been expected to enrol on taught masters haven’t all gone to do research masters instead – because there were only 3,500 more people enrolled on those courses in 2024-25.
There’s also no hard evidence that these aren’t students doing an MRes because they genuinely want to.
The masters by research is a relatively unique UK postgraduate offer. Equivalents are less common in Europe (where a ,asters tends to be a longer and potentially more varied qualification by default) or North America where MRes-type material is likely to constitute the earlier stages of a longer graduate programme.
And the UK MRes has a clear appeal to someone looking for a hands-on degree, with practical training in techniques and methodology that provide solid grounding for further research in or outside academia.
So, we could reasonably say that the MRes is a thing that makes the UK higher education system uniquely appealing and it’s good that more international students have become aware of that option. Even if the manner in which they’ve been made aware is possibly questionable.
Awkwardly explaining exponentials
The quirk of MRes in HESA is that it is masters recruitment apparent within postgraduate research figures. The quirk of MRes in net migration statistics is that this could see masters recruitment appearing within student dependent figures again.
That doesn’t really happen in 2024, perhaps simply because the 85 per cent overall fall in dependent visas is big enough to mask any MRes-related increase.
The data for 2025 onwards could be different. Dependent visas grew by 41 per cent year on year in Q3 2025 (the run-up to September entry).
Granted that’s now from a lower base, but it’s still growth again. And, whilst 3,500 “extra” MRes students won’t turn back the dial on dependents (even assuming a greater than 1:1 ratio, we’re a long way from the 100,000 plus seen previously) if they keep growing at an exponential rate then the increase will be more and more noticeable.
The question for the sector will then be what kind of case universities make for this recruitment.
Is it just about meeting genuine demand? Will it benefit the UK research talent pipeline (something emphasised in the post-16 white paper, albeit with a “home grown” slant)?
Because otherwise the default assumption will be that it is something else, whether universities intend it to be or not.
And then exponentially increasing MRes recruitment will be a bad thing for a sector that really doesn’t need more policy pressure on international recruitment.