Another ‘Alice in Wonderland moment’ with the further round of overseas scholarship funding cuts for UK universities?

This week I found myself experiencing another ‘Alice in Wonderland’ moment when news was circulated that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) would completely withdraw , by 2011, an important source of funding to English universities for scholarships for overseas students – the Overseas Research Students Award Scheme (ORSAS). Currently HEFCE contributes £13 million to this scheme in England, and £15 million overall (including Scotland and Wales).

This comes on top of an announcement in March of this year when UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, announced to the Parliament that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was terminating its 50 year old commitment made to the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission. In essence this decision would cut funding to the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan – so that scholarships would only be available to developing countries. This funding, however, would not be available for doctoral studies.

Now, the recommendations of the report published in July 2008 by the UK Higher Education International Unit (ironically funded by HEFCE and UUK), The UK’s competitive advantage: The Market for International Research Students (see Executive Summary here), were that if the UK wanted to remain a global leader:

  • UK universities must develop a clear and attractive doctoral brand with emphasis on quality and innovation;
  • Initiatives that offset the cost of fees and living in the UK must be developed; and that
  • More needed to be done to illustrate the benefits of a British doctorate to an international audience and to counter the belief that Britain is an expensive place in which to study.

The Report notes that the UK’s key competitor countries, North America, Europe and Australasia, are all developing recruitment strategies aimed at the post graduate market, contributing to a declining share for the UK.

Given this Report; given, too, that demographic changes mean that by 2020 there will be 16% fewer 18 year olds coming through the university system; and given the stepping up of initiatives in other emerging countries around the globe, [for instance this week the Korean government announced that it not only planned to attract 100,000 foreign students to the country by 2010, but that it would double the number of scholarships available to foreign students by 2012 (currently 1,500) as well as loosen visa restrictions on work], it is difficult not to feel as if this is something of an Alice in Wonderland moment – that things in the UK higher education policy sector are getting ‘curiouser and curiouser’!

Alice, of course, was watching her body extend out like a large telescope, while her feet disappeared almost from sight – a distinctly odd sensation and sight. Musing over her almost disappearing feet and how she might have to send shoes and socks as presents to them to keep them going in the direction she wanted to go, Alice remarked: “Oh dear…What nonsense I’m talking!”

Watching the equally ‘odd’ reshaping of the UK overseas scholarship funding regime in the face of advice – that we should be funding more not less overseas doctoral scholarships, contributes to the distinctly odd sensation – of a kind of ‘policy-autism’ amongst the UK higher education’s research, advice and policymaking units with the result that we seem to be seeing and talking policy nonsense!

Unless, of course, things aren’t quite what they seem!

Susan Robertson

Graphic feed: global student mobility matrix (2005)

Source: Internationalization of Higher Education: Foreign Students in Germany-German Students Abroad. Results of the 18th Social Survey of the Deutsches Studentenwerk (DSW) conducted by HIS Hochschul-Informations-System, 2008.

Update: see nanopolitan‘s interesting 4 June reflections (‘Indian’s studying abroad‘) on this table, and the changing nature of the foreign Indian student presence in the USA.

The rise, rhetoric, and reality of international university consortia

sieg2006.jpgPhoto: Summer Institute in Economic Geography (SIEG) participants during a field trip to Milwaukee in 2006. SIEG was developed with support from the WUN, Economic Geography, the NSF, the ESRC, and several other sources.

The recently reported establishment of the International Forum of Public Universities (Forum international des universités publiques) which arose out of the 125th anniversary celebrations at the University of Montreal (Université de Montréal) in 2004, is a reminder of the growth of international university alliances/associations/consortia in recent years. The rhetoric is that as the world becomes increasingly interconnected, universities in different parts of the world need to be closely linked so as to reap the best benefits for education and research.

One of the challenges of making such university alliances work is the lack of clarity of intention, and the lack of a clear articulation of how such alliances, often formed from the top by senior university administrators, can achieve the stated objectives. In almost every new alliance, establishing research partnerships and collaboration among member universities is said to be a priority. Are alliances really an effective way to develop research collaboration though? Member universities that are chosen to be part of an alliance are often chosen for political reasons (“political” in the most expansive of its meanings). They may be chosen because they are thought to be “research powerhouses”. But different universities have different areas of research strength, and university administrators sitting together to decide an area/s among their universities for research collaboration can be quite artificial. Such alliances can then at best facilitate meetings and workshops among researchers, but the collaborative sparks must come from the ground. Throwing a group of people together once or twice and asking that they produce huge grant applications to support collaborative research is not likely to happen. Those with the responsibility of developing alliances, however, will be anxious to show results, and sometimes, just the act of bringing researchers together is hardly sufficient result.

If university alliances are to be about collaboration and partnership to enhance student mobility and learning with “equal” participation from partners, the relative likeness of institutions is important (note the wise words of the Bard here: “That every like is not the same”). The confusion of intent can have implications for membership. Should alliances have geographical representation for legitimacy (refrains of “how can we call ourselves a truly global/international alliance if we are not represented thus?”)? The clarification of intent is important to guide membership decisions, for the profile of the consortia can look quite different whether one is thinking of extending assistance in capacity building to fellow members of an alliance, or whether one is thinking of collaborative teaching, frequent student movement, and in the extreme, joint degrees.

Lily Kong

Editor’s note: international consortia include the ASEAN University Network (AUN), the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), Universitas 21 (U21), and the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN). People at GlobalHigherEd are associated with several of these consortia, and the blog’s development has been partially supported by the WUN. Note, however, that Lily Kong (Vice-President (University & Global Relations) & Vice-Provost (Education), National University of Singapore) is not in a WUN member university.

In the interest of furthering thinking about the nature of international consortia, a multi-disciplinary group of undergraduate and graduate students from Economic Geography 510 (at UW-Madison) recently completed a course report titled Markets & Mobility: The Rise, Rhetoric, and Reality of Inter-University Consortia. The 71 pp. report, which they worked very hard on, can be downloaded here consortiafinal3.pdf (thanks to the generosity of Kristy Lynn Brown, Andrew Epstein, Luthien Lee Niland, Kathryn Wood Rudasill, Joanne Shu-en Tay, and Katie Zaman). I know they would welcome feedback on their views here (in conjunction with a response to Lily Kong’s entry), or directly via email (their contact details are on the cover of the report…CC their prof too OK!). Kris Olds