W:
www.universitybusiness.co.uk | T: @UB_UK
The statistics seem damning enough, but whether these truly evidence a global reaction to visa changes remains unclear. Indeed, bucking these trends, numbers of Chinese students in the UK – boosted by the strength of the yuan – have continued to increase since 2008–2009. HEFCE also recorded an encouraging
9% increase in non EU applicants in 2013– 14 over the previous year. But, adding a further complexity to understanding students’ movements, numbers of full- time EU graduates also decreased by 25% during this period – suggesting that the enforcement of British borders may not be the only turn-off marring HE. Several factors are likely to inform the choices of potential overseas applicants, including rising tuition fees, exchange rates, international competition, the establishment of UK satellites overseas, and the rise of distance learning. Revisions to the visa process enacted in late 2013 also made some concessions for students – making it easier for them to accept corporate internships after graduating, and more straightforward for those using graduate entrepreneur visas to switch to the ‘skilled workers’ equivalent. So just how signifi cant is the new visa regime? In a recent speech, immigration
minister James Brokenshire robustly denied that the visa system needed to be fi xed, and claimed that fears the net immigration policy was harming HE were a “ludicrous fi ction”. Conversely, Duncan Findlater, Director of Client and External Relations at Hobsons, a multinational education company which, amongst its services, off ers tools to streamline enrolment services and
maximise the conversion of applicants, argues that one damaging impact of the current visa policy is the way in which it could be negatively perceived. “Aside from education quality, which naturally comes top, the perception of how ‘welcoming’ a country has become is the most important factor in choosing a place to study for international students,” he contends. In an international student survey carried out by Hobsons, which obtained feedback from 18,393 respondents in 195 countries, 73% of those questioned claimed that the ease of obtaining a visa would aff ect their choice of foreign HE destination. “The potential impact of overseas students’ perceptions of the current UK Visa process is clear,” Findlater says. Declining numbers of international
enrolments recorded at undergraduate level “add weight for the argument that foreign students should be taken out of net migration targets, and for the visa process to potentially be streamlined,” he suggests. These moves could help counter detrimental impressions, and ensure the UK’s success. “Our universities are competing in an increasingly globalised market,” he warns, in which Canada and others have made their immigration systems more at ractive to international students. “They do not count students in their net migration target, and their post-study visa rules are less onerous than in the UK,” observes Findlater. Meanwhile,
behind its
bureaucratically fortifi ed borders, for those lucky students fi nally admit ed to campus, stakes have risen. Tuition fee hikes, and a culture which promotes education as a careerist or existential ‘investment’ may encourage a more combative response when anticipated educational outcomes fail to materialise. Indeed, since £9,000 tuition fees were introduced in 2012, student complaints have risen by 10% – to 20,000 per year. If these are not satisfactorily resolved, recourse to the courts may seem a just fi nal resort to students, given their signifi cant outlay and debt commitments. In this context, the roles of students as purchasers and universities as providers are placed into stark relief. “The relationship between a student
BELOW: Tabitha Cave
and the university they at end has for some time been recognised as being founded in contract, an arrangement that involves mutual responsibilities and obligations,” explains Tabitha Cave, a Partner at Veale Wasbrough Vizards (VWV), a specialist law fi rm which regularly advises the HE sector. Although this is not specifi ed in any one document, she says, “It has also been acknowledged that the contractual relationship
is one between a consumer and a business, and therefore subject to legislation designed to
protect consumer rights, notably the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and the
“To minimise complaints and/ or litigation, universities need to ensure they have taken appropriate steps to thoroughly communicate any changes to courses in a professional manner.” Karen Stevenson
necessarily deliver the content a student has paid for. How concerned do you think universities should be about this?
A: To minimise complaints and/or litigation, universities need to ensure they have taken appropriate steps to thoroughly communicate any changes to
courses in a professional manner. Course documentation from advertisement right through to enrolment must be clear, concise and above all, consistent. Appropriately worded caveats must be included so that when changes have to be made, the contract allows this. Universities must make sure any
alterations, amendments or changes to what has been promised are quickly and clearly communicated in an appropriate way to all those affected. Make sure your course documentation
makes it clear HOW a student can locate information and HOW they will be told of any alterations.
Q: As education becomes increasingly commercialised, will universities need to evolve to remain compliant with consumer law in areas which they may not have considered? on draft guidelines to improve the way that universities deal with student complaints and academic appeals in April, so universities will need to comply with these guidelines once formalised. The draft framework currently sets out a three-stage process with clear timeframes and advice on recording and learning from complaints.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90