No more international students?

Finally coming up for air after the UKCISA conference 2012, out of many interesting sessions, the one which has made most impact was Jonathan Rees and Gail Horton's thought-provoking session Who then really is an international student?

As they demonstrated, our "home" student population is increasingly diverse in terms of background in terms of residence, schooling, parental nationality, etc.  Similarly, many "international" students have some degree of previous experience of living or studying in the UK.  The categories are a mere administrative convenience relating to fee status or immigration status, but may not reflect students' own sense of identity, or give any meaningful clue as to whether they have any particular support needs relating language, cultural adaptation or visa formalities.  Worse still, does such labelling further inhibit integration, and encourage "othering" and an "us/them" mentality on campus - not only among students, but also between students and staff?

So what are the implications of this?  What would it look like if we dropped the "international" label?  Should "International Offices" be replaced by "Mobility and Visa Services Offices"?  One orientation programme for all, with pick and mix sessions for those who need on visas, cultural adaptation etc? (We know that's already happening in increasing numbers of institutions).  Should Language Support be more fully integrated with Study Support?  No doubt there are countless other examples where we could question our current labelling and categorising.

So when I find myself drawn to the idea of "No more international students", it's not in the sense that some of the more xenophobic of our press and public might mean.  Instead lets just drop the labels: a student is a student is a student.  Let's find more inclusive ways of supporting diversity.

Promoting outward mobility

Regular readers of this blog will have noticed a a running theme of comparing national policies on internationalisation.  This week: how both the UK and Japan are keen to increase outward student mobility.

In the UK recent weeks have continued the surge of interest in outward mobility, with the publication of the Riordan report and David Willetts' announcement of a successor to the Erasmus fee waiver (which will also cover Erasmus work placements and study outside the EU) and the possible establishment of a national mobility strategy for England and a body to co-ordinate it. (Scotland has, of course, had the Students Without Borders project in place for sometime.)

Japan, it seems is equally concerned about falling numbers of outwardly mobile students.  An article by Dr Yuriko Sato in the Academic Cooperation Association's newsletter gives details of recent Japanese government initiatives to encourage the internationalisation of Japanese universities and students.  These initiatives are well-funded while they last, but the author questions what will happen when the funding dries up.

That remains the crucial question for the UK too.  It's great to see funding committed to supporting students who are mobile through Erasmus and other schemes, but if we are to encourage real step-changes in the proportion of mobile UK students, any new national strategy will need some real resource behind it.

Equality, diversity & internationalisation

This week the Equality Challenge Unit launched their report Attracting international students: equitable services and support, campus cohesion and community engagement providing the findings of a study of five Scottish universities in relation to equality and diversity issues and internationalisation.  It's a welcome recognition that these two agendas, so often led by separate parts of an institution, in practice are deeply intertwined, and that looking at one through the lens of the other provides useful insights.  

For example, do we provide equitable services for home and international students, and how best to do so?  How well do institutions deliver on the statutory public duty to promote good relations on campus, and with (and within) the local community?  Do institutions have good links with community organisations, and how are these used to expand the support services that are provided to sections of the international student community?

The report celebrates the good work already being done, and provides opportunities to explore good practice, and reflect on existing provision.  It also exhorts institutions to bridge the academic/administrative divide and help raise awareness among academics of the ways in which support services can help their students succeed, stressing the vital role of tutors and lecturers in referring and signposting students towards the services they need.


This report is worth putting in the context of a recent piece of research by German organisation SVR which (according to the PIE News) found that in a study of five European countries, the impact of discrimination on students' decision to stay or leave, the UK came out best, with Germany and France worst at nearly 40%.  Yet even in the UK, over a quarter of international students complained of discrimination.  As this and the ECU report show, there is more work to do.

Migration, internationalisation and more

If you follow international student issues in the UK, you'll no doubt have seen this week's coverage of the latest IPPR report on the perverse consequences of including international students in the calculation of net migration.  

A less well publicised, but equally interesting, report from the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US, reported by Scott Jaschik gives us some useful data about migration in the context of brain drain/gain/circulation.  Unsurprisingly, there is a high proportion of immigrant* research staff in countries like Australia (44.5%), Canada (46.9%), USA (38.4%) and UK (32.9%) - although the highest of all the 16 countries included is Switzerland at 56.7% (*defined for the purpose of this study as those who lived elsewhere at age 18).  By contrast, levels are far lower in countries like Japan (5%), Italy (3%) and India (0.8%).  The breakdown of source countries confirms the truism that the US system is very dependent on researchers from China (16.9%) and India (12.3%), but also that there is much regional mobility, as well as possible linguistic influence - not least evident in the Brits who make up 13.5% of researchers in Canada and 21.1% of those in Australia.  Meanwhile a report on a paper from the OECD suggests that babyboomer academics are retiring at a faster rate than new PhD graduates coming through the system, leading to a likelihood of growing international competition for talent.

Elsewhere in the news this week, NAFSA have published a paper on Measuring and Assessing Internationalization, which encouragingly acknowledges that internationalisation shouldn't be measured as an end in itself, and focuses mainly on the issue of assessing students' "global learning".  This reflects some of the issues discussed in the recent Warwick Integration Summit (see previous blog).  And if you think that's the way forward, have a look at the forthcoming Higher Education Academy event at the University of Glasgow on Internationalising Graduate Attributes: Buildilng an Inclusive Curriculum which will report on the outcome of some student-led research on the topic.

Another call to rethink internationalisation comes from the Vice-Chancellor of a Malaysian University.  Dzulkifli Abdul Razak points out that Singapore has rowed back on its enthusiastic policy of increasing international student numbers in the face of domestic criticism and fears that home students were being displaced (sound familiar?), leading to a possible cap on numbers, and rescinding a scheme to allow international students to stay on for a year to seek employment (sounding even more familiar?).  He echoes the concerns of the recent IAU report that internationalisation must not be allowed to become the cart driving the horse, and echoes concerns I heard from Malaysian colleagues over a decade ago that internationalisation must not be a cover for creeping Westernisation by the back door.  A useful reminder that even (and perhaps especially) such seemingly benign concepts as internationalisation can be culturally-based and biased.

Ethics for agents: a welcome statement

The UK, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand have recently agreed to jointly endorse a Statement of Principles for the Ethical Recruitment of International Students by Education Agents and Consultants.(known as the London Statement)  While in the US, the use of agents is currently subject to much debate, other leading host countries have long accepted agents as a fact of life, and have endeavoured to work with them, while recognising that standards of service do vary enormously.  The British Council, for example, offers agent training to help build a cadre of agents who are well-informed about the UK and can give students the best possible advice about studying there. 

In an ideal world, we might all wish to see some form of accreditation system which checked up on agents' competence to advise, ensured they were acting ethically and provided a complaints scheme for students who had been poorly advised.  Providing any such scheme on a global basis would be a colossal undertaking, and it is therefore understandable that the London Statement is only a statement of principles, not a kitemarking scheme.

Nevertheless, it provides a useful indicator to students of what standards of service they should expect.  It will remain vital for students to seek independent advice about the competence and impartiality of any agent they wish to use, not just to take at face value agents' claims abouting adhering to the principles.

Institutions too can help by encouraging adherence to the principles, ensuring they vet agents, and clearly publicise with which agents they have agreements.

So while "buyer beware" remains the motto, we welome the London statement for asserting international students' right to expect impartial and expert advise.

Should I stay or should I go now?

While the UK government continues to worry about how to bring down net migration and discourage students from staying on, the Dutch government not only wants international graduates to stay, it also wants to encourage its international alumni to return.  Following a report that many didn't know about their options to stay and work, the Dutch international education organisation NUFFIC is setting up a new business and careers portal in association with the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, expected to go live in November.  Now that sounds like a good way to make international students feel welcome.

A return to the bad old days?

For many years international students applying for a visa to study in the UK had to prove their intention to return home at the end of their studies.  This gave Entry Clearance Officers an extraordinary power to base decisions on subjective judgements (what constitutes proof for an 18 year old about to enter a whole new life by virtue of embarking on a degree abroad?)  One of the greatest strengths of the Points Based System was, at least on paper, the abolition of such subjective tests – decisions should be based on evidence of ability to study not on judgements about intentions.

The recent press coverage trailing plans to re-introduce visa interviews raise alarm bells, not least because they appear to be politically motivated headline chasing, rather than well-developed policy decisions.  No details are available yet to confirm the procedures and criteria which will apply, nor has any evidence been placed in the public domain to explain why, when the Olympics are already placing a strain on the UK Border Agency’s resources, and overseas posts in particular, resources are to be diverted to interviewing student visa applicants in one or more countries.

Earlier this year the UK Border Agency told us, in response to our Tier 4 survey, that they had no plans to change the requirements for English language testing, as this had already raised the standard of English among applicants.  Yet press coverage of the “secret pilots” tells us that language is one of the concerns.  No details have been published about what gives them cause for concern about the language levels of students interviewed.  Do UKBA have reason to believe the Secure English Language Tests they themselves selected and approved have proved liable to fraud?  Do they believe UKBA staff are better equipped than universities to judge the English language capabilities of students?  Surely Highly Trusted Sponsors should be warned as a matter of urgency of any weaknesses in the system which UKBA have identified.

Sponsors will be equally keen to know if UKBA has information about fraudulent qualifications or financial information, having emphasised since the introduction of the Points Based System that if the responsibility for policing these was shifted from UKBA to institutions, there must be intelligence sharing between the two.  It was never logical to expect institutions, working at a distance, to be able to vet documents with the same access to local knowledge as ECOs working in each country (or even, with the hub and spoke system, working on a group of countries).

We hope that UKBA will speedily be sharing with sponsors (who are all by definition highly trusted these days), the concerns it has about the applicants in its pilot study, and will be working with the sector to identify how best any remaining abuses in the system can be rooted out.  It is in no-one’s interest to perpetuate loopholes for the unscrupulous, but neither is it in the interest of UKBA to leave sponsors out of the loop. 

And after extensive bad press for the UK’s student visa system, the last thing we can afford at this point is any suggestion that international students will once more be subject to erratic and subjective judgement by UK visa officials.