International higher education is a strategic asset for the UK – universities need to realise that potential in their places

The summer brought, alongside a new Prime Minister, a fresh wave of blows to the higher education sector’s international education ambitions.

The implementation of new stricter thresholds for BCA compliance, combined with a sudden and largely unexpected spike in visa refusals by the Home Office, led some to wonder privately whether the government was prepared to sacrifice the higher education sector on the altar of driving down net migration. That the visa refusals seemed to follow no discernable pattern, and that there was little in the way of explanation from the Home Office signalling a change in approach, only intensified the sector’s sense of being under siege.

Last week’s Budget brought mixed news: despite intensive sector lobbying the International Student Levy will proceed as intended, at a cost to the sector of £1 billion over its first three years, according to Department for Education estimates. However, universities were also offered a carrot, of sorts – students studying at universities that can show high levels of compliance with the visa regime and strong graduate outcomes will be able to transfer to the Graduate route for two years following graduation, rather than the standard 18 months.

Most of this signals a government that is at its heart, pragmatic, rather than ideological. International education remains both a vital export for the UK and a critical source of income for universities. As IDP’s latest Emerging Futures research shows, the international education market is more competitive than ever: with 83 per cent of prospective students considering multiple destination options, and the likelihood of obtaining a visa high on the list of determining factors. It does not serve the UK well to choke that supply too far, and the partial extension of the Graduate Route could help to keep the UK’s edge on the competition.

The centrality of student fee status in the current round of negotiations with the EU shows the salience of the UK’s higher education offer in our geopolitical relationships. On the other hand, for a government that continues to battle populist rhetoric, and that is light on other potential sources of revenue, the opportunity for a new income stream is all but irresistible – especially when it’s explicitly tied to tackling student poverty at home.

A further example of the government’s apparent pragmatism is that it is not averse to dividing up the HE sector into high-quality “compliant” institutions and a less-favoured remainer, and dividing the spoils accordingly. Nobody will want to fall on the wrong side of that line, and there is a degree to which some institutions may end up feeling the deck is stacked against them because their recruitment profile tends to see them making offers to students in “riskier” countries.

However, when quality is the categorical imperative, the sector simply cannot be seen to tolerate anything that looks like poor practice or an attempt to circumvent the immigration rules. Pressure on representative bodies to “call out bad actors” is likely to increase, and so all recruitment strategies will need to be realistic and focused on real strengths, and translate into meaningful student experience value, rather than relying on the halo effect of UK HE generally.

Strategic asset

The problem, as vice chancellors recognise, is that the levers available to government to pull tend to take the form of short-term fixes – tweaks to revenue, policy adjustments – rather than a strategic alignment of the assets it holds in the higher education sector, the international education regime, and its national and international policy objectives. The International Education Strategy (IES) represents an attempt to bring these forces into alignment, focusing on recruitment of quality students that will have a high quality experience in the UK, as well as wider aspirations around TNE and international education partnerships.

The higher education sector’s action plan arising from the IES strikes a rather sombre tone, pointing out that any return to growth in international in-UK numbers (on which the strategy’s headline target goal of £40bn in education exports depends) requires the sector to adapt to a more stringent visa compliance regime and diversify intake during a time of global geopolitical instability, all while effectively promoting the UK as a welcoming and high quality study destination.

The sector probably never intended to make the argument that international education props up university finances quite so baldly, but it’s noticeable that while the argument has cut through, it has not made a great deal of difference. Institution heads recognise that the value of international education is that it feeds the enduring public purpose and academic mission of higher education – if money were not a factor universities would still want to recruit international students both for the diversity of perspective and experience they bring to campuses, and the wider public benefits of global relationships and soft power. It’s that authentic commitment to international education that now needs to come to the fore, rather than the tactical argument about finance.

Over the past year, together with Wonkhe, we’ve been hosting private conversations with experts in international recruitment, culminating in a round table discussion with vice chancellors, to explore what the sector can do to make a success of the International Education Strategy. Our consistent view, picking up on the themes of the strategy, is that quality is central, in all forms of the word – well-informed and qualified students benefitting from a high quality academic experience, but also – crucially – developing skills, knowledge and connections that serve their future employment ambitions whether in the UK, in their country of origin, or globally.

We work closely with the UK sector to provide that pipeline of well-qualified students, and to give them the information and support they need to make their choices and navigate the application process. Our goal is to match every student to the institution that is right for them. And our conversations in the past year lead us to the conclusion that to sustainably grow that pipeline for the UK means moving on from broad-based narratives about the value of the UK as a study destination, or even the “top university” positioning, towards telling a more compelling story about what is distinctive and exciting about each and every institution: stories grounded in places, industry partnerships, and pedagogies.

The future growth strategy must be based on a deeper understanding among policymakers of the degree to which UK higher education is a strategic asset internationally, and a source of global economic comparative advantage. Right now, vice chancellors tell us privately that they are doing deals to educate students abroad in critical skills such as AI, purely to keep the lights on at home. If this dynamic is to shift, institutions need to be active in working out how to realise the sector’s advantage in practice, and that means a much greater focus on how international education interacts with place.

Global talent, local impact

As devolution and regional economic growth rise up the political agenda, the sector can win political allies and influence by translating international education provision into impact on regional growth. A clearer line on “global talent, local impact” would tie international students and graduates to the skills needs of particular places and industries. Local skills improvement plans now make it possible, in principle and for the first time, to map what international graduates bring against what regional economies need.

But the picture is much bigger than simple skills deficits. The relationships universities have with industry, and their role in building ecosystems that attract inward investment, can be directly connected to international education. The sector’s long history of international education manifests in positive relationships with senior staff in global companies, and the sector’s research and innovation strengths cement the incentive to invest.

None of this is straightforward – most mayors come into their roles hoping to serve local people, sort the buses out, or persuade local employers to offer more jobs for young NEETs, not to get embroiled in geopolitics. But the sector can make a persuasive case that working with universities on bringing – and, in some cases, keeping – international talent to a local area is a meaningful contribution to the long term economic health of regions. Industry is also a powerful advocate – strengthened links with both SMEs and global companies can help universities to identify synergies between international education and industry need.

Again, not easy – SMEs can feel edged out by larger companies, while global firms are more mobile and less tied to the UK. Skills forecasts are often overblown, or overly instrumental. But a world in which mayors understand and support international education, universities build recruitment strategies around their distinctive contribution to regional (or, where relevant, national) agendas, and students benefit from an internationally recognised learning experience that puts them in a strong position to take their skills and knowledge anywhere in the world, can only strengthen the UK’s international education offer and the basis on which it solicits political support.

This article is published as part of a partnership with IDP Education.