Nick began his career with Nottingham Trent University in the UK working in international student recruitment, before going on to a wide range of leadership and consultancy roles in the private sector. He joined The PIE in 2021 and is a key commentator on the current trends in the global higher education industry. He curates content for our PIE Live conferences and is the co-host of the Tales from the Departure Lounge podcast. Get in touch with Nick at [email protected]
As the UK prepares for the Graduate Route to be shortened from two years to 18 months, London’s business leaders have had their say on international graduates in the workforce, with 90% showing support.
The results of London Higher‘s recent survey of 1,000 business leaders found that international talent is highly valued across London businesses – 62% of respondents view international talent as essential and a further 28% say it is important. Only 10% say foreign talent is not very important or not at all important.
“Global graduates give London its competitive edge. Every sector of our economy benefits from the talent and energy they bring. This research shows that they don’t take opportunities away – they help create them,” said Liz Hutchinson, chief executive of London Higher – the membership organisation that promotes and acts as an advocate for higher education in the city.
The majority of those surveyed believe that international talent plugs skills gaps (93%), drives innovation (89%) and supports London’s global competitiveness, while only a small minority of business leaders felt it reduced scope for domestic talent and innovation.
Some 93% of respondents say that international talent helps address skills gaps in their industry, with only 4% saying that international workers reduce opportunities for UK talent.
“By helping businesses expand, [global graduates] generate more jobs and opportunities for everyone. As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors,” added Hutchinson.
As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors
Liz Hutchinson, London Higher
Elsewhere, 91% of those surveyed view international workers as essential or helpful for the city’s competitiveness against global cities such as New York, Singapore or Paris, with only 7% saying that their relevance is limited or non-existent.
The survey shows that support for international talent is strongest in larger, growth sector companies – and in those that think they are outperforming their competitors.
The survey comes as anti-immigration rhetoric in the UK intensifies and the government pushes ahead with stricter immigration rules.
As domestic politics play out in headlines overseas and concerns grow around the UK’s stance as a welcoming destination for international talent, Harry Coath, head of the talent and skills programme at London’s growth agency, London & Partners, said he sees an opportunity for London to position itself as a city that truly embraces diversity – a factor he noted is central to why so many businesses choose to be here.
Speaking at London Higher’s conference this week, alongside Coath, Ruth Arnold, executive director of external affairs at Study Group, said the latest research is arguably the most important report London Higher has ever produced, taking into consideration this political context and the importance of employability and post-study work to today’s international students.
The UK government’s decision to cut the Graduate Route visa from two years to 18 months was first announced in May in the UK government’s white paper on immigration, and the change is set to to take effect from January 2027.
The survey showed that business leaders think international students should be able to access work visas – 59% want to see easier access for international students to stay in the country 28% feel the current system works, while only 10% are vying for tighter controls.
John Dickie, CEO of BusinessLDN, commented on the report’s findings, highlighting the importance that the UK “does all it can to remain attractive to highly skilled individuals from across the globe, particularly at a time when some of our rivals are closing their doors to international students”.
Dickie noted the government’s proposed levy on international student fees, and urged ministers to scrap these “misguided plans” that he said would “hit growth, exacerbate the sector’s financial challenges and undermine [the UK’s] soft power”.
Key points:
When our leadership team at Firthmoor Primary met with an OPAL (Outdoor Play and Learning) representative, one message came through clearly: “Play isn’t a break from learning, it is learning.”
As she flipped through slides, we saw examples from other schools where playgrounds were transformed into hubs of creativity. There were “play stations” where children could build, imagine, and collaborate. One that stood out for me was the simple addition of a music station, where children could dance to songs during break time, turning recess into an outlet for joy, self-expression, and community.
The OPAL program is not about giving children “more time off.” It’s about making play purposeful, inclusive, and developmental. At Firthmoor, our head teacher has made OPAL part of the long-term school plan, ensuring that playtime builds creativity, resilience, and social skills just as much as lessons in the classroom.
After seeing these OPAL examples, I couldn’t help but think about how different this vision is from what dominates the conversation in so many schools: technology. While OPAL emphasizes unstructured play, movement, and creativity, most education systems, both in the UK and abroad, are under pressure to adopt more edtech. The argument is that early access to screens helps children personalize their learning, build digital fluency, and prepare for a future where tech skills are essential.
But what happens when those two philosophies collide?
On one side, programs like OPAL remind us that children need hands-on experiences, imagination, and social connection–skills that can’t be replaced by a tablet. On the other, schools around the world are racing to keep pace with the digital age.
Even in Silicon Valley, where tech innovation is born, schools like the Waldorf School of the Peninsula have chosen to go screen-free in early years. Their reasoning echoes OPAL’s ethos: Creativity and deep human interaction lay stronger cognitive and emotional foundations than any app can provide.
Research supports this caution. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health advises parents and schools to carefully balance screen use with physical activity, sleep, and family interaction. And in 2023, UNESCO warned that “not all edtech improves learning outcomes, and some displace play and social interaction.” Similarly, the OECD’s 2021 report found that heavy screen use among 10-year-olds correlated with lower well-being scores, highlighting the risks of relying too heavily on devices in the early years.
As a governor, I see both sides: the enthusiasm for digital tools that promise engagement and efficiency, and the concern for children’s well-being and readiness for lifelong learning. OPAL has made me think about what kind of foundations we want to lay before layering on technology.
So where does this leave us? For me, the OPAL initiative at Firthmoor is a powerful reminder that education doesn’t have to be an either/or choice between tech and tradition. The real challenge is balance.
This raises important questions for all of us in education:
This is a conversation not just for educators, but for parents, policymakers, and communities. How do we want the next generation to learn, play, and thrive?
Some 16,100 international students could be deterred from studying in the UK in the first year universities are levied 6% of all their international student fees, comes the stark warning from a new report from the think tank Public First.
Should the government make good on the proposal – outlined in the immigration white paper earlier this year – this figure could rocket to more than 77,000 students in the first five years of its implementation, the report predicts.
The government expects universities to pass the increased costs onto international students themselves by raising fees. But Public First cautioned that such a move would have catastrophic consequences by driving international students away, hitting the UK’s economy by £2.2 billion over five years and leading to a reduction of 135,000 university places for domestic students.
The think tank projected that a 6.38% international student fee increase – necessary for universities to pass on the entire cost of the levy – would have a far greater impact on students’ decision to study in the UK than the government has anticipated.
This is because the government’s forecasts were based on data for EU students. However, Public First noted that price elasticity of demand for non-EU students is greater than their EU counterparts – meaning they would be more likely to be look elsewhere if they found UK fees too expensive.
Jonathan Simons, partner at Public First and author of the report, noted that the projected impact of the levy “is much more severe than had been predicted previously”.
It is not widely understood just how much our economy is supported by international students and it’s really crucial that any policy that could affect international student numbers is considered through this lens
Jonathan Simons, Public First
“This, of course, will hit our universities, around 40% of whom are already in deficit, and that could lead to a further loss of jobs, a loss of university places for UK students and a loss of vital research investment,” he added.
“Perhaps even more significant, though, is the hit an international student levy could cause to local, regional and national economies across the UK. It is not widely understood just how much our economy is supported by international students and it’s really crucial that any policy that could affect international student numbers is considered through this lens.”
Henri Murison, chief executive of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership and chair of the Growing Together Alliance, said that the levy was opposed by all of England’s major regional employer organisations “because the resulting decline in international students would be hugely damaging to all the regions of the country”.
“The Chancellor should take note of the economic damage of this policy which undermines a critical UK export and we have requested an urgent meeting to raise our concerns,” he said.
The proposed levy has been widely criticised by higher education institutions.
Last month, a HEPI analysis predicted that UK universities could take a £621m hit if the policy goes ahead, with those situated in big metropolitan cities set to be the worst affected.
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.
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:
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.
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.
As UK education minister Bridget Phillipson has rightly acknowledged, the UK is home to many world-class universities.
And the country’s excellence in higher education is yet again on display in the QS World University Rankings 2026.
Imperial College London, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge and UCL all maintain their places in the global top 10 and 17 of the total 90 UK universities ranked this year are in the top 100, two more than last year.
The University of Sheffield and The University of Nottingham have returned to the global top 100 for the first time since 2023 and 2024 respectively.
But despite improvements at the top end of the QS ranking, some 61% of ranked UK universities have dropped this year.
Overall, the 2026 ranking paints a picture of heightening global competition. A number of markets have been emerging as higher education hubs in recent decades – and the increased investment, attention and ambition in various places is apparent in this year’s iteration.
Saudi Arabia – whose government had set a target to have five institutions in the top 200 by 2030 – has seen its first entry into to top 100, with King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals soaring 34 places to rank 67th globally.
Vietnam, a country that is aiming for five of its universities to feature in the top 500 by the end of the decade, has seen its representation in the rankings leap from six last year to 10 in 2026.
China is still the third most represented location in the world in the QS World University Rankings with 72 institutions, behind only the US with 192 and the UK with 90. And yet, close to 80 institutions that are part of the Chinese Double First Class Universities initiative to build world-class universities still do not feature in the overall WUR.
Saudi Arabia currently has three institutions in the top 200, while Vietnam has one in the top 500. If these countries succeed in their ambitions, which universities will lose out among the globe’s top in five years’ time?
The financial pressure the UK higher education is facing is well documented. Universities UK (UUK) recently calculated that government policy decisions will result in a £1.4 billion reduction in funding to higher education providers in England in 2025/26. The Office for Students’s warning that 43% of England’s higher education institutions will be in deficit this academic year is often cited.
Some 19% UK university leaders say they have cut back on investment in research given the current financial climate, and an additional 79% are considering future reductions.
On a global scale, cuts like this will more than likely have a detrimental impact on the UK’s performance in the QS World University Ranking – the world’s most-consulted international university ranking and leading higher education benchmarking tool.
The 2026 QS World University Rankings already identify areas where UK universities are behind global competitors.
With a 39.2 average score in the Citations per Faculty area, measuring the intensity of research at universities, the UK is already far behind places such as Singapore, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Australia and Mainland China, all of which have average scores of at least 70.
In Faculty Student Ratio, analysing the number of lecturers compared to students, the UK (average score of 26.7) is behind the best performing locations such as Norway (73.7), Switzerland (63.8) and Sweden (61.8).
While Oxford, Cambridge and LSE all feature in the global top 15 in Employment Outcomes and 13 UK universities feature in the top 100 for reputation among employers, other universities across the world are improving at a faster rate than many UK universities.
And, despite its historical dominance in the global education lens, global competitors are catching up with UK higher education in international student ratio and international faculty.
While 74% of UK universities improved in the international student ratio indicator in 2022, the last few years have identified a weakening among UK institutions. In 2023, 54% of UK universities fell in this area, in 2024, 56% dropped and in 2025, 74% declined. And in 2026, 73% dropped.
The government in Westminster is already aware that every £1 it spends on R&D delivers £7 of economic benefits in the long term and, for that reason, it prioritised spending to rise to £22.6bn in 2029-30 from £20.4bn in 2025-26.
But without the financial stability at higher education institutions in question, universities will need more support going ahead beyond support for their research capabilities. Their role in developing graduates with the skills to propel the UK forward is being overlooked. The QS 2026 World University Ranking is already showing that global peers are forging ahead. UK universities will need the right backing to maintain their world-leading position.
It’s never been done before, anywhere in the world.
HESA’s experimental data (collected via part C of the HE-BCI questionnaire) shows 2,269 companies founded or owned by UK higher education providers, stretching as far back as 1969 (excluding 22 operating in “stealth mode” for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
It puts names and numbers on the phenomenon of the higher education provider spin-out – demonstrating a direct impact of research, development, and incubation activity.
In itself, it is simply a list of company names, linked to provider names and showing foundation and incorporation dates (the former is the year when intellectual property was transferred to the spin-out, the later is the year it was registered with an appropriate authority like Companies House). It includes all spin-outs active during the 2023-24 academic year, plus spin-outs of any status since 1 August 2012. It will become more useful as more data is added year-by-year, and it is very much promoted as a starting point for data linking and further analysis. But even now, we can see the growth in numbers over time, and the way new spin-out numbers have declined since 2021.
With this in mind, we’ve linked via company registration number to the main Companies House free data source. The majority of companies are registered here – you can generally read an absence of registration as an indication that a company is no longer active, but there are also some edge cases..
Companies House data isn’t brilliant quality, but it allows us to unlock some additional information about each one. We can see an indication of status (confirmation that a spin-out is active, or details of what else – liquidation, administration – may be going on. We get an indication of the location of the spin-out, and the company type (is it a limited company?).
Of particular interest to us was the activity of the company in terms of the industry it is involved in. Companies House uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes – on registration and annual confirmation you can supply up to a total of four. Again I should emphasise that the quality of data isn’t fantastic, but this does give you a sense of what all of these spinouts may be up to.
By far the largest sphere of activity is biotechnology development, with the catch all “other research and development on natural sciences and engineering” in second place.
Five providers have more than 100 spin-outs registered – Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, Swansea, and Manchester (Imperial is at 97). It would perhaps be more surprising to many to see 72 spin outs from the Royal College of Art – these are not limited to arts-related activity although the majority will be design-led.
DK has put together a master search, allowing you to view salient details of every spin-out on the register. Choose a provider of interest with the filter on the top, or narrow down by company activity using the free text (you can enter up to five terms, and it is a little bit experimental so it may not always produce the results you would expect – but do persist) box at the bottom – and he’s also added a filter for social enterprises.
Policy watchers may be interested in whether the spin-out ecosystem is getting stronger, or looking healthy, or as many in the sector would say that spinning-out is fine but spinning-up is really difficult.
Again, it’s hard to know without more data. Of the 2,269 companies on the register 526 are not currently registered with companies house, 67 are in liquidation, 30 have a “proposal to strike off”, and 8 are in administration. Another way to look at this of course is that 1,646 university spin-out companies stretching as far back as 1969 are, at least on paper, alive and well. This is in stark contrast to businesses more generally where only one-third of businesses started ten years ago are still in existence.
Another interesting question is whether various interventions, reviews, templates on equity, or missives from the government have made developing spin-outs any easier or more lucrative. Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the register is not the right place to look for this information. It is tempting to say that as university finances came under real strain from 2021 onwards spin-out creation velocity declined. Clearly, universities need cash to invest in spin-outs and when they have less cash it would seem likely there would be fewer spin-outs. However, we just don’t have enough information in this register to suggest with confidence why the spin-out ecosystem looks like it does, even if we can describe what is happening.
The first major report of Universities UK’s transformation and efficiency taskforce – Towards a new era of collaboration – is a milestone in the ongoing national debate about unlocking maximum value from state investment in the higher education system.
Though “transformation and efficiency” is the headline, the focus of the group has largely been on collaboration – ways in which universities and other providers can work together, and ways in which government and regulators can make it easier for this to happen.
The drive for transformation came slowly at first and then all at once. The financial pressures on the sector – arising from Covid recovery, uneven patterns of student recruitment, rising pensions costs and erosion of the unit of resource for undergraduate tuition – are long standing (remember then chief of staff Sue Gray’s “shitlist” for the new government which featured the financial collapse of a large university?)
The election of a new Labour government prompted the publication of the Universities UK Blueprint which hoped for a shift in relations between government and the sector based on effort on both sides to address the structural challenges facing higher education, of which a taskforce on transformation was one recommendation.
Even at the point of the formation of the taskforce, led by former University of the Arts London vice chancellor Nigel Carrington, there was a degree of scepticism about how feasible the promised “new era of collaboration” might be. Wonkhe and Mills & Reeve’s Only Connect report on the opportunities for cooperation in the English sector found an appetite in principle among university leadership for new models for collaboration, along with a sense that the cultural and regulatory barriers were so significant as to make meaningful exploration of those opportunities unlikely.
The taskforce, through a series of in-depth interviews with stakeholders, and detailed work with sector organisations, professional bodies and external experts, has therefore made an enormous stride forward in setting out the potential for system-wide change.
There is a genre of departmental spending review submission called the “bleeding stumps” report, wherein civil servants offer up apocalyptic and or foolish ways in which spending constraints can be overcome – ex-DfE adviser Sam Freedman loves to tell the story of a pre-spending review report that suggested that pupils could attend school either in the morning or the afternoon.
What Universities UK has produced is pretty much the diametric opposite of this approach. While recognising the dwindling availability of cash, the impact of these circumstances is set out via the results of a survey conducted in May of this year. While this is pretty bleak reading – 55 per cent of universities are consolidating courses (94 per cent would consider in the next three years), 25 per cent have seen compulsory staff redundancies already (up 14 percentage points on last year) and 36 per cent are cutting student support services (77 per cent would consider) – it comes across neither as sensationalist nor overblown to reflect the way the sector is having to change.
The “would consider in next three years” column will be of most concern to the government, even beyond DfE: 79 per cent would consider cutting academic research activity, 71 per cent would be looking at cutting civic and local growth activity. To be clear this is based on a survey completed by 57 providers, so while it does show a concerning direction of travel you couldn’t expect a precise picture of what is happening on the ground everywhere.
One interesting nugget within this section is a call for sector stewardship – with OfS focusing on teaching through a market-based regulatory lens, and Research England acting as a research council UUK argues that no single body has an eye on the health of the sector as a whole with the ability to intervene where action is needed. The declining value of tuition fee income and other state support is part of the issue, but a rise in the number of providers and what is described as “an increasingly competitive environment” has played a part in many of the pressures universities are facing. As consultees told the taskforce:
the focus had shifted too far to the individual student or institution, even where that created conflict with wider national interests, including disadvantaging activity that could benefit economic objectives and wider society but may not translate into student demand, such as the provision of highly specialised skills to meet the needs of certain industries or the protection of universities playing important civic roles in parts of the country with higher levels of disadvantage.
The taskforce’s findings are neatly split across seven “opportunities”, each with associated actions for university leaders, Universities UK itself, other organisations, and government:
Each is also supported by case studies (drawing primarily on existing work in the UK higher education sector, though the net is occasionally cast further afield) and indications of appetite from consultation respondees.
The case for university collaboration in the UK has been made with increasing frequency as the financial squeeze starts to make itself felt in profound ways. That said, there has been little tangible activity – the report points to longstanding structures such as the University of London federation, existing networks of research collaborations, and strategic working with local stakeholders. The taskforce adds the multi-academy trust-esque group structures employed by the (HE and FE) University of the Highlands and (cross sector) London South Bank to the list., and there is a nod to the world of sharing expensive research infrastructure too.
A third strand covers the sharing of infrastructure and services – major examples here include UCAS and the Jisc Janet network, alongside more specialist activity like Uniac on auditing services (further examples are worth digging into via the recent Jisc/KPMG report).
Though the big newsworthy two-become-one moments exemplified by ARU Writtle may be few and far between, what comes across powerfully is just how much of this stuff is going one, and the potential that exists to do more. One of the big gaps is expertise and understanding – tackling the legal, technical, and process aspects of joint working is not for the faint of heart and if this is the direction of travel both specialist staff and institutional leaders need to be clear and up to date on how this works. There’s scope for detailed advice and guidance (that the taskforce itself will produce) alongside an ongoing support function at Universities UK – we need regulatory tweaks to allow for innovation in organisational forms too.
The bigger asks are for a transformation fund, and specific advice from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on what would constitute a breach of competition law in this space. The latter appears to be in progress – there was an encouraging blog post from CMA at the end of last week. The cost of transformation (ie investing in the infrastructure and systems that can enable efficiency) could, the taskforce suggests, arrive in a straightforward way by allowing universities to access a “small portion” of the existing £3.25bn Transformation Fund available to the public sector.
Taken as a whole, the higher education sector spends £20.1bn on operating expenses each year – much of the non-pay end of this happens via procurement processes at individual institutions. The cumulative impact of all this spending can often enable the sector to get a better deal, but this needs to be coordinated across multiple providers for the benefits to kick in. Initiatives like the UK University Purchasing Consortia and Jisc’s procurement on behalf of the sector are unlocking big, existing, savings – the report suggests savings of £116m via UKUPC, and £138m for the Jisc activity – taking maximum advantage of these proven schemes could drive further savings.
But there is potential to unlock even more – the work of the taskforce indicates that there is both scope and appetite for this kind of collaborative spending in information technology (ask your IT department, the cost of software licenses and cloud-based solutions are spiralling) and estates (bear in mind the maintenance backlog that the precarious financial environment has led to).
Another angle is making it easier to understand when your university is spending over the odds. Finance teams are very keen on benchmarking spending with comparable institutions – why should it cost more to do fundamental stuff than at the university down the road? – but it is difficult to access reliable and comparable data. There’s a suggestion that an Association of the Heads of University Administration (AHUA) organisational efficiency maturity model (basically best practice on understanding and reporting spending) could help get the sector on the same page, and that UUK could drive a more collaborative approach to sharing and using this data to drive savings.
There’s any number of promises that the latest and greatest software can save your university time and money, but your IT director will tell you that such promises take substantial time and money to realise. The rise of large language model generative tools has unlocked another round of wild claims, and both institutional leaders and IT and administrative specialists are being asked to evaluate spending even more to make these efficiencies a reality. There’s so many questions – not least around whether your shiny new system will work with the systems and processes you already use.
The trouble is, understanding and implementing this stuff takes time and expertise at both specialist and leadership levels – and both are at a premium in higher education. Jisc is already supporting 24 providers in understanding and benchmarking their digital transformation maturity – helping, in essence, to understand where further help may be needed. There’s also a need to actively and meaningfully involve senior leaders, and to understand the digital competencies of staff and students. The taskforce calls for a wider roll-out of this maturity model, and for Jisc and UCISA to promote shared standards around software and processes.
The need for an advancement in leadership skills runs throughout the taskforce report. Transformations like the ones advocated require competencies and knowledge that go far beyond business as usual, and correspondingly more is being asked of senior staff and governors – all of which comes alongside a more onerous (and fast-moving) regulatory regime that requires its own expanding set of skills.
The report is supportive of the current Committee of University Chairs (CUC) initiative to review university governance (via updating its current code for governors), and Universities UK proposes to facilitate ongoing and sector-led improvement activity.
There’s immediate stuff that can be done on cost pressures – there’s a specific ask of government on relaxing the rules that require some universities to enroll all staff onto the increasingly expensive teacher’s pension scheme (TPS), and a more general suggestions that the government avoid putting additional costs on the sector such as introducing new and unfunded expectations, or inventing new levies.
There is clearly scope to address the regulatory burden placed on the sector – one easy win would be to address the barriers to collaboration. Recent regulatory activity (particularly in England) has focused on individual providers – the recent shift in the OfS remit to consider the wider health of the sector offers scope to reestablish the idea of a “custodian” of the sector that could deliver on the long-term goals set all levels of government and by wider civic society.
This report marks the end of the first phase of Universities UK work on transformation and efficiency. Phase two will create an oversight group to keep an eye on the various asks from sector agencies and monitor both progress and impact. This is not in any sense a political report – though it is clearly politically useful – and it is clear that both UUK and the sector are in this for the long haul.
More broadly the report stands as another signal to government that the sector is prepared to go further and faster on transformation and collaboration that has previously been the case – but there is a clear desire for a reciprocal “vision” or plan from government around which the sector can do, ideally backed up with some investment in that vision.
The rather dour communications that have so far issued from DfE on HE reform and funding suggest that the government is not yet prepared to give the sector a full-throated endorsement, but there is scope for that to change following next week’s spending review and the publication of the post 16 education and skills and HE reform white paper this summer.
Economic circumstances notwithstanding the policy agenda in the next few months will set a course for HE for the rest of this parliament and beyond – it would be a real own-goal not to seize the opportunity to work with the sector to get things onto a firmer footing.
Higher education has always played a critical role in skills development, from professional fields like Medicine, Dentistry, and Engineering to more recent models such as degree apprenticeships. However, as the UK’s digital economy evolves at an unprecedented pace, there is a growing need to rebalance provision, ensuring that universities continue to equip graduates with both theoretical expertise and industry-ready capabilities in areas such as AI, cybersecurity, and automation.
The government’s strategic focus on workforce development underscores the importance of these changes, with higher education well-placed to lead the transformation. As industries adapt, the need for a highly skilled workforce has never been greater. The UK Government’s Plan for Jobs outlines a strategic vision for workforce development, placing skills at the heart of economic growth, national security, and regional resilience.
With the new higher education reform expected in Summer 2025, the sector faces a pivotal moment. The Department for Education has announced that the upcoming changes will focus on improving student outcomes, employment pathways, and financial sustainability in HE. While universities are autonomous institutions, government policy and funding mechanisms are key drivers influencing institutional priorities. The increasing emphasis on workforce development – particularly in cybersecurity, AI, and other high-demand sectors- suggests that universities will likely need to adapt, particularly as new regulatory and funding structures emerge under the forthcoming HE reform.
The skills gap is no longer an abstract policy concern; it is a pressing challenge with economic and security implications. The introduction of Degree Apprenticeships in 2015 was a landmark shift towards integrating academic learning with industry needs. Subsequent initiatives, including MSc conversion courses in AI and Data Science, Level 6 apprenticeships, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) serve as policy levers designed to encourage and facilitate a more skills-oriented higher education landscape, rather than evidence of an inherent need for change. Through mechanisms such as Degree Apprenticeships, AI conversion courses, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, the government is actively shaping pathways that incentivise greater emphasis on employability and applied learning within universities.
The Plan for Change accelerates this momentum, funding over 30 regional projects designed to enhance cyber resilience and workforce readiness. One example is the CyberLocal programme, a government-backed initiative (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) focused on upskilling local authorities, SMEs, and community organisations in cybersecurity. CyberLocal connects universities, businesses, and local governments to deliver tailored cyber resilience training, addressing the increasing threats to national digital security. More information can be found through CyberLocal’s page.
At the same time, the financial landscape of HE is shifting. Declining student enrolments in traditional subjects, increasing operational costs, and a competitive global market have left many institutions reassessing their sustainability strategies. The upcoming higher education reform will shape policy from 2025 onwards, and universities must determine how best to adapt to new funding models and student expectations.
While skills-based education is often positioned as a solution, it is not an immediate financial fix. Many Degree Apprenticeships are run at a loss due to administrative complexities, employer engagement challenges, and high operational costs. Several articles, including those previously published at HEPI, highlight that while demand is growing, institutions face significant challenges in delivering these programmes at scale.
Government-backed funding in AI training and cybersecurity resilience offers targeted opportunities, but these remain limited in scope. Some universities have found success in co-designed upskilling and reskilling initiatives, particularly where regional economic growth strategies align with HE capabilities. The Institute of Coding, a national collaboration between universities and employers funded by the Office for Students, has developed industry-focused digital skills training, particularly in software development and cybersecurity. Additionally, the Office for Students Short Course trial has enabled universities to develop flexible, modular programmes that respond directly to employer demand in areas such as AI, digital transformation, and cybersecurity. Other examples include the National Centre for AI in Tertiary Education, which supports universities in embedding AI skills into their curricula to meet the growing demand for AI literacy across multiple sectors. However, a broader financial model that enables sustainable, scalable skills education is still required.
Since 2018, the Department for Education (DfE) has supported the creation of Institutes of Technology (IoTs), with 19 now operational across England and Wales. These institutions prioritise digital and cyber education, aligning with local skills needs and economic strategies. Strengthening collaboration between HE and IoTs could enable universities to support regionally tailored workforce development.
Examples such as the East Midlands Freeport, the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Skills Observatory, and CyberLocal illustrate the power of localised approaches. The Collective Skills Observatory, a joint initiative between De Montfort University and the East Midlands Chamber, is leveraging real-time workforce data to ensure that training provision matches employer demand. These initiatives could provide a blueprint for future HE collaboration with regional skills networks, particularly as the UK government reviews post-2025 skills policy.
The government’s focus on cyber resilience and AI-driven industries underscores the urgent need for skills development in these areas. With AI poised to reshape global industries, universities must ensure graduates are prepared for rapidly evolving job roles. However, one of the biggest challenges is the slow pace of curriculum development in higher education.
Traditional course approval processes mean new degrees can take two to three years to develop. In fields like AI, where breakthroughs happen on a monthly rather than yearly basis, this presents a serious risk of curricula becoming outdated before they are even launched. Universities must explore faster, more flexible course design models, such as shorter accreditation cycles, modular learning pathways, and micro-credentials.
Government-backed initiatives, such as the Institute of Coding, have demonstrated alternative models for responsive skills training. As the HE reform unfolds, universities will need to consider how existing governance structures can adapt to the demands of an AI-driven economy.
The forthcoming higher education reform is expected to introduce significant policy changes, including revised funding structures, greater emphasis on employability and skills-based education, and stronger incentives for industry partnerships, particularly in STEM and digital sectors.
Higher education must position itself as a leader in skills development. The recent Universities UK (UUK) blueprint, calls for deeper collaboration between the further and higher education sectors, recognising their complementary strengths. Further education offers agility and vocational expertise, while higher education provides advanced research and higher-level skills training – together, they can create a seamless learner journey.
At the same time, national initiatives such as Skills England, the Digital Skills Partnerships, and Degree Apprenticeships present opportunities for universities to engage in long-term skills planning. The integration of Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) loans will further support continuous upskilling and career transitions, reinforcing the role of HE in lifelong workforce development.
With the HE reform announcement expected in Summer 2025, universities must act now to align with the government’s long-term skills agenda. The future of HE is being written now, and skills must be at the heart of it.
The AI Opportunities Action Plan, led by Matt Clifford CBE and announced in January, documents recommendations for the government to grow the UK’s AI sector to ‘position the UK to be an AI maker, not an AI taker’ in the field and help achieve economic growth.
The UK’s AI Action Plan highlights the critical need to harness international talent and expand the workforce with AI expertise. However, this ambition is at odds with recent moves by the British government to limit international student numbers through stricter visa regulations, leading universities to make difficult decisions—cutting courses, slashing budgets, and exploring alternative strategies to maintain financial stability and global relevance.
Despite a well-documented skills gap in the UK’s AI sector, the Government’s actions have forced universities to pivot toward establishing global campuses in a bid to preserve financial stability and maintain and promote international collaboration in general. This trend is exemplified by universities like Coventry University, which opened a campus in Delhi last year, and the University of Lancaster’s partnership with Deakin University in Indonesia. Today, UK universities operate 38 campuses across 18 countries, educating more than 67,750 students abroad.
While these international campuses help extend the UK’s academic reach, the UK’s immigration policies are creating significant barriers to attracting top-tier AI talent to work domestically. Many international graduates, trained to UK standards, are struggling to secure postgraduate visas for themselves and their families, preventing them from contributing their skills to the UK economy.
One of the main visa routes intended to help international talent integrate into the UK workforce is the High Potential Individual (HPI) visa. The HPI visa is a UK immigration pathway designed for recent graduates from 40 top global universities, allowing them to live and work in the UK for several years. However, this scheme remains restrictive. To qualify, applicants must have a qualification from one of the eligible global universities in the last five years. Of the universities included, 47.62% are from the US, and there is just one institution from the entire southern hemisphere on the list.
The AI action plan recommended the government consider reforming the HPI pathway with ‘graduates from some leading AI institutions, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology and (since 2020) Carnegie Mellon University in the US, are not currently included in the High Potential Individual visa eligibility list’.
The AI Action Plan itself highlights the need for a rethink of the UK’s immigration system to attract graduates from top AI institutions worldwide. However, the government has only ‘partially agreed‘ with this recommendation, pointing to existing visa schemes that they believe meet the needs of skilled workers, including AI graduates. However, it can be argued that the UK visa process is often expensive, and Global Talent Visas require employer sponsorship while failing to account for the challenges that international graduates face when trying to secure long-term employment, especially in industries with rapidly evolving skills like AI. Even if the HPI eligibility list was expanded, our existing visa pathways are too restrictive to support a rapid influx of skilled graduates.
The AI Action Plan calls on the government to ‘support Higher Education institutions in increasing the number of AI graduates and teaching industry-relevant skills.’ The reality is that many UK universities have already adjusted their strategies to cope with both domestic financial pressures and the measures introduced to quell international students through restricted immigration pathways.
The question remains whether universities will be expected to reverse course, intensify efforts to recruit domestically and retain AI talent to meet the government’s urgent targets. Without a targeted and affordable visa system to support these efforts, the AI Action Plan’s goals risk falling short of their potential.
This is not about asking Universities to ensure that their international students have clear career pathways post-graduation or providing AI-specific courses. The government must create an AI-specific visa that allows graduates from top global institutions to work in the UK.
The real need lies in fostering closer collaboration between higher education institutions and government policymakers, particularly when it comes to visas. The government must take responsibility for creating a new visa pathway if it wants to meet the aims of the AI action plan. Universities cannot be expected to U-turn- develop new courses in the face of financial constraints and restrictive visa policies.
Mauve Group is a global HR, Employer of Record and business consultancy provider. Mauve specialises in supporting organisations of all sizes to expand overseas, helping companies navigate the complexities of employing workers across borders.