Visionary or Delusional? How the UK government’s international education strategy will perform in the real world.

This is my first post for a long while. The last year has been a bit crazy in our sector and there is a lot to reflect on. I am aiming to write more regular commentaries from now on. Here goes…

Radio 4’s Start The Week show this week featured Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London.   He has a new collection of essays, On Strategists and Strategy, to be published in March.

Freedman defines strategy as what you are trying to do and how you are going to go about doing it.  The problem, he says, is that any strategy requires engagement with human beings who have their own agendas.  When even the most compelling sounding strategy encounters the real world, things rarely happen as planned. 

On the surface, there are many reasons to be positive about the updated international education strategy*, recently published by the UK government.  The education sector is described as a trade priority, its importance to the economy and to brand UK overseas is emphasised. It is also good news that the government is prepared to declare an aggressive and measurable financial goal of £40bn in annual education exports by 2030.  Unfortunately, it is much harder to be confident in its chances of success.

The government acknowledges it is aiming to achieve significant export growth in the context of major policy changes, driven by the political imperative to gain a firmer control of immigration.

Its last strategy published in March 2019 envisaged 600,000 international students hosted in the UK by 2030, a number which was achieved ten years early.

The approach is now very different:

Indeed, as Lawrence Freedman would anticipate, some of the more tangible aspects of the strategy; beyond the warm words on soft power, trust through international engagement and building national reputation; are likely to struggle when people act in response to it.   The rational actions of three groups of people – international students, university leaders and government decision-makers themselves – will pose particular threats to its success.   In fact, we are already starting to see this play out.

International students

Students have an increasing range of choices for their study destination, and several factors are leading many to question the UK’s value relative to other options.  A shorter post-study visa limit under the Graduate Route and ongoing concerns about graduate outcomes are unfavourable for the perception of the UK’s attractiveness, given its high costs of living and study compared to many alternative destinations.   A new annual levy on international students in England of £925, to be introduced in the 2028/9 academic year will not help the sales pitch.

As UK politicians have become tougher on immigration, previous benefits for international students – such as the those on postgraduate taught programmes being able to bring dependents with them – have been withdrawn.  Certain European study destinations, including Germany, with an increasing number of courses in English, lower tuition fees, and attractive post-study work routes, have seen growth.

Happy to study in Germany instead?

In the UK it is difficult to see how softening demand for in-person study, which makes up the bulk of current international education export revenues, can be sufficiently counteracted by the expansion of other student services.  Whilst growing strongly in volume, and with universities continuing to invest in TNE provision, revenue per student for TNE is considerably lower. 

University leaders

Sustainable recruitment of incoming international students and driving export growth through transnational education (TNE) are two core components of the new international education strategy.  Both have major weaknesses when considered through the lens of flawed attempts by some university leaders to grab market share.

Several university decision-makers have rationally taken advantage of the fact that restrictions to dependent visas are not applicable to master’s by research (MRes) courses.  As reported in Times Higher Education, a tripling of international enrolments on MRes programmes in 2024-25, against the prior year, is led by some lower-ranked universities who are highly exposed to the shifts in student demand for postgraduate taught programmes since the regulations changed: including University of Greater Manchester (increasing from 50 in 23/24 to 915 in 24/25), University of Lancashire (140 to 850), University of Wolverhampton (5 to 770), University of Gloucestershire (5 to 730), and York St. John 90 to 190).

Boom time for the University of Wolverhampton’s MRes student numbers

Whilst in the current rules, and therefore a legitimate approach to international student recruitment, debate rages as to whether the MRes enterprise is damaging to the sector.  Certainly the Home Office thinks so, threatening action against it.   It can be a valid and valuable part of a university’s programme portfolio – indeed Imperial College, UCL, University of Cambridge and University of Oxford all recruit international students to MRes programmes.  But the ramp up in the promotion of MRes at less prestigious institutions by some education agents is a world away from the sustainable approach to international student recruitment defined in the strategy.  MRes has been positioned by some agents as an easy entry option and a workaround to current visa rules, enabling dependents of students on these programmes to secure visas. The actions of some university leaders is likely to bring tighter regulation and scrutiny, and increase costs of recruitment.  The perception is that the sector cannot be trusted to police itself.

Meanwhile, the government’s favoured export growth strategy of TNE has also been called into question with Adam Habib, vice-chancellor of SOAS University of London, calling some universities “deluded” – as also reported by Times Higher Education.   His comments are focused on whether universities with financial difficulties can solve their problems by opening campuses in India, observing that 5 of the British 10 universities currently pursuing this strategy are running deficits: “If they think they’re going to make their money in India in the short term to cross-subsidise, I think they’re very, very deluded about the Indian marketplace.”

Further appetite for TNE investments are likely to be constrained unless these first major ventures are successful.

It is easy to agree with Habib’s criticism of the international education strategy: the government wants to boost UK exports but only if less students are turning up in the country.

Some universities may make a success of TNE.  All MRes programmes are not evil. But given the perilous state of institutional finances, their executive officers are, in  many cases, acting with an air of desperation.  The rapid expansion of cost bases during the boom times have created a deadweight in today’s market.  New revenue streams are needed, but TNE and MRes expansion should come with a health warning.

Government decision-makers

In its new strategy, the government talks at length about it support for the expansion of international education, through bodies such as the Department for Business and Trade and the British Council. At the same time, cuts to these organisations are threatened.   This is a clear case of a strategy being undermined from within.

As David Pilsbury, chief development officer at Oxford International Education Group, is quoted as saying about the higher education sector: “the reality is that we are on our own”.                                     

Conclusion

Success of a strategy relies on alignment of execution, which in turn heavily depends on how effectively those involved in delivering are able to anticipate and adapt to the actions of others.  The government’s new strategy looks great when presented in a glossy manifesto. But it is unlikely to succeed when its key audiences, stakeholders and its own funding approach are pushing in opposing directions.

This begs the question that if the sector is on its own, what should its strategy be to thrive in the future?  A topic I’ll return to in the coming weeks.