Category Archives: DIAC

Mar 27 2012

Australian Streamlining implemented, Post Study Work detailed… imperfections continue to linger!

This is an interesting week indeed. I have also just returned to the chaos after spending a few weeks in Australia that allowed me to hear and share the viewpoints of several others in the industry…

Flashing the disclaimer of it remaining a “developing story”, both the concepts evolving out of the Knight recommendations are laudable and certainly aimed at propping up the languishing industry. It is certainly the caffeine that International Education wanted and now it’s the time for looking into the nuts and bolts of the details  since there are several anomalies that needs fixing before it is too late.

Streamlining “key” Anomalies:

With no template or prototype available to Universities, there are several approaches to the streamlining. This is a possible cause for some chaos.

The “grander” Universities believe that they donot need so many checks since “wrong students” donot come to them at all. This is possibly true to an extent since stricter entry requirements, stricter attendance norms and higher fees do work as a screening by itself. MY WORRY: It is possible that there may be some students who begin with the grander University to be able to get an easy visa and then change institutions… What is the insurance? Catching the agents will not be a good idea since the students can be exposed to other influences once they are on-shore and may find the studies easier or fees cheaper elsewhere…

Most Universities are working on redrafting their forms so that they can collect some financial commitments from the students and know on how the studies will be funded. This is totally in line with the requirement but MY WORRY: Some of the Universities want the financial sponsorship details along with the initial application when the student at that time is not even 100% sure that he will get in and/or he will choose this institution from the various other options that he has. This is a wrong move and will actually deter the applicants. The better idea is what some others are implementing… which is : The initial application doesnot ask financial details… The offer letter thus generated is conditional to financials and hence before the issue of eCOE, the University is able to satisfy itself.

A linked issue is with regards to checks and the role of agents or University’s contracted local staff. Who will take ownership to the genuineness of the applicant? Frankly, the agent alone should be asked to also sign a pre-verification-checklist prior to request for eCOE. Only the agent is in the position and also having the skill-set that is required for the verifications. I am of the firm view that the current skill-set of the local contracted staff of Universities is not suitable for verifications of documents at all while it might be fine for the other roles… Infact, my recent interactions with University senior staff surprised me that many Universities donot really know why they have an Indian office… A clarity will not just help them but will help the staff and also the agent. With hardly any market left in B level cities and hardly any paper applications in the system now… the only area that comes to my mind as a ground for having a local staff is to enable out-reach activities and institutional linkages. To ensure that this happens, one would need the right qualification and skill-set though. Also remember that most Universities have already pruned their agent lists and there are only a few agents left for the recruitment staff to work with. The student numbers for Australia is also about 10% of what it was two years ago and though growing, not likely to reach the 2008-09 level ever again.

Post Study Work Anomalies:

There is a recent FAQ on PSW on the immigration website. it clearly indicates that students graduating and applying for PSW must have studied for 2 academic years (92 wks CRICOS completed in a minimum of 16 months) and in a course that leads to a Bachelors, Masters or PhD.

The details also go on to indicate that packages that total to 2 years is fine but a Masters cannot be packaged with a Graduate Diploma and hence implying that all components of a package should be either a Bachelors, Masters or PhD.

Wow.. Heads, you lose; Tales, I win…

The above just defeats the purpose of the AQF. How does a student studying a quality 1.5 year Masters be eligible for the PSW if he cannot add a Graduate Diploma or a Grad Certicate to his Masters… Asking him to study another Masters is grossly unfair indeed. In the same line of thinking, a student who studies at a TAFE can package into a Bachelors degree and be required only to study another 1.5 years to get a Bachelors degree and will also benefit from the introduced streamlining with this genuine and appropriate packaging BUT will not be eligible for PSW even after having studied for well over 3 years in Australia.

I also read somewhere that the students should have applied and started their “first” student visa after 5th November 2011 since the PSW is dependent on the student having been assessed under GTE when they first entered Australia. This is a disadvantage to those who are Australian alumni and are returning to Australia to study a next level program of study. it is also a disadvantage to a student who may have started their Bachelors in 2011 and graduating in 2013 and 2014. Something is not right. Australia does pride in offering a FAIR GO…

Come On Policy Makers at DIAC. Fix these and fix them quickly… PSW is a decider in the game!

This is not my only post on the topic and you can certainly look out for more commentaries to this developing story. My interest is purely to ensure that the industry wakes up and the new laudable changes are implemented correctly. After spending more than two decades here, I seem to sniff the areas that stink.

I know the immediate response for some will be to dislike my open criticism even though it is clearly pro-active and constructive. Am reminded of saying of KABIR that most Indians must have heard from their elders…

Nindak niyare rakhiye aangan kuti chhawaye;
Bin sabun pani bina nirmal karat subhaye.

(Keep a critic near you in your backyard for they will help you cleanse yourself without soap and water)

FOR ACCURATE AND UPDATED INFORMATION ON STREAMLINING AND POST STUDY WORK, PLEASE CONSULT WWW.IMMI.GOV.AU . THE ABOVE IS ONLY A PERSONAL COMMENTARY OF THE BLOGGER AND NOT MEANT TO BE COMPLETE OR ACCURATE.

Feb 22 2012

Streamlining lesson for Australian Universities: “be careful what you lobby for! “

My last blog gave an agent’s perspective to DIAC’s innovative streamlining and that it indicated my observation of “surrender” on part of the Universities. Now I attempt to cover the perspective of education providers. That blog generated a lot of interest and there were questions on “what is all this about?” and honestly, I needed to dig deeper to understand it myself. Not sure if I am ready with my predictions but somehow the gut feel is not one that is too optimistic.

I need to base this blog on material evidence and sources and hence will take help of publicly available information and tie-in my comments to the sourced quotes.

ALL 39 universities have finally opted into the government’s streamlined student visa processing system amid warnings of the serious risks they face if any eventually fall short of Immigration Department standards.

Although most universities are believed to have been rated by the department at the low-risk level 2, it is understood a few have been rated at the higher risk levels 3 and 4, meaning they will have to raise their performance to avoid dropping out of the system.

But they will have time to improve and will not be held accountable until a review in March next year, when those still rated at level 3 will have a further six months to improve.

This is what THE AUSTRALIAN reported this day. However interestingly, DIAC “has agreed to keep risk assessment levels confidential to avoid them becoming a proxy for quality”. But with more than two people knowing something, it cannot be confidential. Quoting THE AUSTRALIAN…

According to industry rumours, only two universities were rated initially at the lowest risk level 1, but both these were thought to have relatively small international student numbers. The university of Notre Dame is rumoured to be one of these.

I agree that it is easy for an University from Freemantle with hardly any recruitment activities in higher risk countries to have an AL1. The bulk of the Universities are in AL2 and once again “rumours” have it that two Universities that have figured lower in the AL are CQU and University of Ballarat. Some would say “understandably so!!!” as they chose to partner with private vendors to offer their programs who in turn worked like private businesses “alone” till they were forced to change (or have they!). These Universities, by themselves, are fine institutions otherwise.

My take is that the whole game of exposing the Universities to the Immigration’s AL mechanism is far too risky. It is now a done deal for DIAC that all the Universities have “opted in” and hence have become “participating” in the streamlining. Clearly this has not been an easy decision. Professor Dean Forbes, Deputy VC at Flinders University has been quoted by the newspapers today indicating that

“For many Australian universities, the inevitable consequence of losing access to the streamline program will be a significant reduction in international students and a precipitous decline in revenue,”

Digging deeper, I come across the full arguments of Professor Forbes. In a paper titled ASSESSING AND MANAGING RISK IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: A POST KNIGHT REVIEW INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE  that includes the thoughts influenced from his discussions at a recent meet and also discussions with members of the Universities Australia advisory group. I would assume that this is not an internal document as it is publicly available and will be quoting verbatim from this well structured article.

Last December DIAC informed universities about their Overall Risk Ratings (ORR) based on hitherto unseen student visa data. Measured on their international students visa performance universities were allocated into one of four bands.

The challenge crystallized.

  • Optimists wondered how to get promoted to a higher level
  • Pessimists were concerned with how to avoid relegation
  • And some of us were thinking, we must do this, but what are the risks, and will I lose my job if I get it wrong?

I seem to be agreeing to most of what Professor Forbes writes when he indicates…

THE RISKS FOR UNIVERSITIES

The initial area of risk for universities was about the decision to opt in or opt out of the streamlined visa program. Where they had a real choice by being classified as AL1 or AL2, this was a relatively straightforward trade-off between risks and rewards. It was more complex for universities categorised in AL3 or AL4.

For those that opted into the streamlined program, the area of risk shifted to the performance of the university. This centres on the ORI, which will be calculated on a six monthly basis. This is a short period; too short in my view. A rolling figure over 24 months would even out the impact of short-term blips.

Deterioration in the visa performance of international students would see the university drop down the AL range and lose access to the streamlined program.

Now for people such as us he interprets the factors that could precipitate a slide down the AL…

So what are the specific factors that could precipitate a slide down the Assessment Levels? Essentially, universities have greater responsibility for enrolling only bona fide students. That sounds straightforward: right? Well, no. DIAC’s assessment of students will be at the AL1 level, which is less rigorous than it is for AL2-AL4 countries. If there is a mis-judgement of an international student by either DIAC or a university it will affect the university’s ORI, and hence jeopardise their access to the streamlining process.

Universities are not required to do anything, but will still be held accountable. At the same time, they will need to manage the risks around the interpretation of visa requirements and of the information they have access to, and the risks of seeking out and assessing private information that may contravene privacy legislation.

There are five specific risk areas for universities that need to be managed. They must:

1. Undertake a financial assessment of students in order to be sure that students can meet their obligations. Some universities may outsource this function or work with banks on assessments

2. Ensure the students meet the appropriate English language requirements. DIAC has identified what it believes are appropriate levels of English for university study

3. Deal only with student recruitment agents that have a high level of integrity and success with the students they recommend. Coincidentally, DEEWR/DIISTRTE has recently released a Statement of Principles for the Ethical Recruitment of International Students by Education Agents and Consultants

4. Where visas are packaged with partner education institutions, ensure the partners standards are at the same level as the universities

5. Be confident that students are Genuine Temporary Entrants (GTE). That is, they are not intending to stay in Australia on a long-term basis

Universities have for some time dealt directly with four of these five areas. The exception is the judgment call about whether a prospective student is a Genuine Temporary Entrant. The real difference is that the risks for universities is significantly higher. Some of the risk previously taken by DIAC has been shifted to the universities. These are risks by proxy.

Under the current regime, if a university misjudged a student it was dealt with on an individual basis, as for any other student issue. DIAC managed the consequences. If the national visa data demonstrated that there was a pattern in a particular country, and students were not complying with the visa requirements, DIAC adjusted the AL for the country. Under the streamlined process the adjustment will be based on the university with which the student is involved. If a negative pattern emerges, as measured by the ORI, the university will be penalised.

While I can say BEST OF LUCK to the Universities and say it with a lot of sincerity and a little sarcasm, I was drawn to the newsletter of ANU where they have informed that the University has decided to “opt in” to the streamlining. I guess they thought that some will “opt in” and some will not. The fact that all have had to “opt-in” could actually be another interesting scenario. Just wait for two years and get ready for another Knight Review into the whole process that may just summarise that only those who take the hefty visa fee that includes costs for verification and manpower need to spend it too. I am not the only one saying this.

The University of Adelaide’s pro-vice-chancellor (international), Kent Anderson, said although streamlined processing was positive, the government was effectively shifting responsibilities and costs on to universities.

The documents quoted extensively above can be of big help in understanding the new innovative visa mechanism from an insider’s perspective. (The Australian article is on this link and  You can access the  paper of Professor Forbes on this link) Can’t agree more with Professor Forbes when he concludes…

Overall the next 12 months promise interesting times for international heads in universities. The lesson of all this for universities: be careful what you lobby for! 

Jan 24 2012

I predict shrinking of On-shore student recruitment in Australia from 2013

When Internet reached inner confines of India and when the young started browsing at broadband speeds, it resulted in airlines cutting out the intermediaries or lowering the commissions paid to the agents and hence drove many travel operators out of business. The same was forecasted also for the education agents and many western commentators believed that students will now access the information online, put in applications online and then will not need the services of an education agent. They also hence influenced the “so called experts” within the education sector to devise strategies that worked from this assessment. However, there was one major error in the calculations. Overseas students did not need the agent only for assistance with applications into institutions. They also needed the agents for help through the student visa process with advise that came out of their experience. Though authorities did not approve, the agents also were the first port of call for students seeking education as a pathway to migration and whether the education agents offered migration process or not, they had to respond to the student’s queries on the courses that met the migration requirements. While the education information could be provided through online searches and online counseling, student visa guidance and also some “tips” on the migration pathway, could only be taken through the education agents “face to face”. Education Providers too realized this and more so realized that converting online enquiries to “bums on seats” was far more complex than through the services of the agents.

The above applied to offshore and onshore education agents and the business opportunity that came their way. A perfect business model indeed and win-win for all…Education Providers, Students, Agents and even Government Agencies. DIAC relied on selective agents worldwide to vet the visa lodgments. Austrade and AEI worked closely with agents to boost forex earnings and also to focus on certain markets. In Australia, several migration agents extended their activities to include education counseling.

However the last two years has seen a changed environment. Whether it is for good or not; is subject to another article. Here we just note that the environment has been altered.
A tightening of the residency visa regulations means that those who entered Australia desiring their education to be a pathway to migration had to look for changed courses and quick-fix solutions and handholding locally to find solutions.
Onshore agents were not recruiting students from offshore locations and suddenly found themselves moving students from diplomas to degrees and from one MODL occupation linked course to another SOL linked program.

This churning of the students already in the system gave an illusion of the market existing when the reality was that the new students entering Australia from India had declined by over 75% last two year.

The reality is also that the churning of the students in the system only has a short life span. There is likely to be very few students seeking changes from diploma to degree or any other such movement in 2013. Further, since the first visa to private institutions and to vocational providers has already become so difficult, it is less likely that the industry will see the same kind of numbers again. Students already in the University system are less prone to the churning phenomenon anyways.

This is only one aspect of the changed environment… The Post-Study-Work visa announced this year post-Knight review means that a “near-guarantee” is being linked to the student visa for degree students. Though this is a welcome move, it is something that will make many onshore education and migration agents uneasy. The “guarantee” means that the students will be able to work for 2-4 years on completion of the program and this was not dependent on the occupation and whether it had migration outcomes. This “guarantee” means that the students will not be seeking help from migration or education agents on-shore anymore from 2013 to the same extent as has been done currently.

And… the streamlined system proposed for the Universities and also other guides issued to them have meant that most Universities are going to be using less and less number of agents even in the overseas markets. Education Agents are going to be required even more but since the institutions have to be accountable for them, they are likely to be even more discerning. I will not be surprised if they limit their new agents only to certain markets around the world and reduce their onshore contracts.

Well, in light of the above… my gut feel is that migrations agents will be busier with employee and state nomination categories, family migrations and other such categories that require handholding beyond the information that is currently available in public domain. The skill level of the migration agents will also be challenged and personally I feel that this will drive some of them also out of business.

What bothers me is the fact that some registered migration agents due to their helplessness or greed are cutting corners in overseas markets through sub-contracting or otherwise and hence bracketing others in their industry also as suspicious. I may indicate that in India, AAERI was forced to suspend 4 agents recently for suspected-student fraud and even though the matter is still under police/authorities investigation, 2 of the 4 agents are registered (and continue to be registered) migration agents in Australia though functioning through sub-offices in India. Technically, the Australian legislation does-not reaches India and this is where a loophole exists allowing onshore-regulated agents engaging in unregulated activities overseas.

I shall hesitate in generalizing and shall acknowledge that many of the agents are ethical and genuine in their intent. However like what happened with offshore education agents over last two years, scape-goats too have to be found. I fear that Australia has found them in the onshore education agents and in the offshore activities of the onshore migration agents…

Jan 7 2012

Anuj Bidwe Killing: Indian Media commentary misses out where it matters…

BRITISH MEDIA INFORMS: Anuj had originally wanted to study in Australia but Subhash persuaded him not to because he was worried about a spate of racist attacks on Indians in 2009. 

BBC adds: Anuj Bidve could have gone to a US or Australian university to fulfil his dream of pioneering new micro-electronics technology. But his parents sent their only son to the UK because they thought “he’d be safer there”.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080837/Anuj-Bidve-murder-Parents-took-bank-loans-send-UK.html#ixzz1iiQuuzMq

The point that I am making is NOT that UK is as racist as Australia supposedly is or that US is equally unsafe. But that any place in the world can be safe or unsafe and this includes our own cities in India. Just like our own neighborhood in India, we need to exercise caution and alertness in all large cities. Avoid certain areas after dark and also remember that there will always be some people, even though very few in numbers, who are racist or have a distaste for foreigners. This is a reality and possibly a reality alike how some feel in different parts of India for others from other parts of India who land up in their cities for the jobs. However, this is indeed a very small number and our interaction with such can be prevented if we avoid certain areas at certain hours. Don’t we advise our close ones to avoid certain areas of our own towns in India at certain hours? I am sure we do that. 

There are several useful weblinks that give tips on how to carry ourselves out while being an overseas student in a foreign land. Most education counselors (of repute) do conduct pre-departure briefings for their students. I am providing some excerpts from Vancouver Police site, which gives some safety tips… (Knowing that several of this blog readers are students…)

On the Street

Be alert. Walk with confidence. Walk with your head up. Be aware of who is and what is around you, and be careful when someone approaches you with a simple question. Leave strange or uncomfortable situations. Trust your instincts. Always tell your roommate or host family where you are going and when you will be back.

  • before going out ask advice for the best routes to events, restaurants or shopping
  • change direction if you feel you are being followed; go to the nearest store, restaurant, or pay phone
  • do not carry large amounts of money (cash), and do not show money in public; use bank / debit cards instead
  • never share your PIN number or let others see it
  • keep your passport in a safe place at home; instead carry a photocopy of your passport and other ID
  • don’t go out alone or accept rides with strangers; do not hitchhike
  • don’t use headphones when walking / jogging; they make it difficult to hear an approaching car or stranger
  • don’t carry weapons; they are illegal and can be used against you
  • don’t argue or fight if robbed – yell loudly
  • fight back to protect yourself if you are attacked; try to stop or distract the attacker so that you can escape and call 911

Out at Night

At night, walk on well-lit, busy streets. Try to be with someone. Walk in the middle of the sidewalk. Avoid isolated areas such as parks where there are no other people around. Carry a whistle or other personal safety device. Scream or yell loudly if attacked.

Nov 26 2011

Australia to miss the opportunity due to “crafty” implementation of Knight Recommendations… I feel smarted.

Mike Knight recommendations did open up an opportunity. However, I feel that someone is cleverly pulling out its punch and moving it towards: Much ado about nothing. I have already summarized the huge achievement as that it has changed the mood of the market from gross-pessimism to optimism. I also indicated that the biggest two gains have been the introduction of slightly lower financial requirements and introduction of Post Study Work.

Before I list my reasons for terming the implementation as “crafty”, let me first lay out the opportunity that OZ has.

The Opportunity:

Solely thanks to the Mike Knight recommendations and its apparent advantages to the students, the student market had turned to an upwards preference for Australia as a destination.

Setting aside the so-called expert opinions, we conducted a random survey of 100 students from Eastern India (between September  and mid-November) to gauge the mood on the ground. The survey was aimed at determining the “first choice destination” as expressed by the “fee paying student”. I would like to point out that these 100 students expressed their opinion prior-to them being counseled and hence the survey does-not indicate whether they will be joining their first choice destination at all. However, it is a major analysis of the impact of the situation on the ground and deserves your attention.

 The above clearly indicates that in this September – November period in 2011, the first-choice destination amongst the fee-paying students is still UK ahead of other competitive options. However, what is real-development is that there is a clear “drastic” decline in interest for UK in 2011 as compared to 2010 and if we compare it to other destinations, we can notice that in recent months, there is an increase in interest for Australia possibly due to the Post Study Work introduction there recently. There is also an increase in interest for Singapore while NZ and Canada which grew rapidly last year seem to be plateauing out now.

Now let me share why I feel that the implementation of the Knight Recommendations is happening but not-necessarily as was intended.

First I remind as to what Michael Knight recommended for Post Study Work…

4.1  All graduates of an Australian university Bachelor degree, who have spent at least two academic years studying that degree in Australia, and complied with their visa conditions, should receive two years work rights.

4.2  All graduates of an Australian university Masters by Coursework degree, who have studied that degree in Australia, and complied with their visa conditions, should receive two years work rights on successful completion of their course.

The FAQ too issued by immigration on PSW at the first instance simply provided a cut-paste of the above and hence implying that students who complete a Masters (by coursework) of any duration to be eligible for PSW. Under 4.1 Knight did recommend a minimum duration for Bachelors degree as 2 years but his entire purpose of listing the Masters provision under 4.2 is possibly that he has attempted to differentiate for Masters and not recommend a minimum 2 year requirement. Atleast, this is my reading. Read the above again for yourself.

Now, lets see what has just been put out on the immigration link detailing the implementation.  The link is http://www.immi.gov.au/students/issues-impact-student-visas.htm

2013

Proposed implementation of recommendations arising from the Knight review.

Post-study work rights (Recommendations 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 8):

Bachelor (and Masters by Coursework) graduates who have spent at least two academic years studying that degree in Australia to receive two years post-study work rights

Masters by Research graduates to receive three years post-study work rights

PhD graduates to receive four years post-study work rights.

Do you notice the craftiness that takes away the real bite. UK has had Post Study Work after a Masters which in most cases was a one year qualification. Historically the Masters in Australia was between 1 and 1.5 years and was only made a 2 year program due to immigration point system that gave the points for Australian study only if one had studied for 2 years. If the Mike Knight recommendations 4.2 is implemented as has been mentioned in the Mike Knight Report, it would have meant a big-deal and a life-saver. However, that is not to be so… Immigration in its site is clubbing 4.1 and 4.2 together and indicating that Bachelors and Masters (Coursework) need to be of 2 year duration.

Well, I feel that someone does-not like the Mike Knight recommendations and is twisting them to derail the full reforms or its potential advantages. Hope that someone will bring this to the attention of those who drafted the recommendation. 

Nov 21 2011

OZ and BRITISH official studies find EDUCATION AGENTS AS VITAL… Shutting off the opinionated.

“While gap exists, education agents will be there to fill it”

BRITAIN FIRST:

Education agents are essential to the international education industry, despite the controversy that surrounds them. This is the latest positive indictment of agencies from UK cultural mission (and global language teaching operation), the British Council. In its recent paper, it also notes that the debate over the ethics of their use is becoming “detached” from the reality seen by students on the ground.

(This is sourced from the article by Dan Thomas, The PIE’s roving report. His article is on this link.)

The comments are part of the Why Students Use Agents – Demand and Supply report, which surveyed 131,000 international students between 2007 and 2010 about their views on agents.

Released this month, the report airs positive and negative views gleaned from student interviews and questionnaires, but says in its conclusions, “A knowledge and information gap exists between prospective students – and importantly their fee-paying parents – and the process of overseas study… While this gap exists, education agents will be there to fill it.”

The comments will hearten agents, particularly in the US where college admissions officers are deeply divided over their use. Earlier this year, the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) considered barring its members from using commission-based recruiters abroad, although it has since called for a two-year moratorium on the issue while a NACAC-appointed commission further considers the role that education agencies play in the industry.

“No matter the controversy, the fact that education agents have become a global industry is undeniable,” said Elizabeth Shepherd, Research Manager at the British Council’s Education Intelligence unit. “We must step away from the debate and understand how differently prospective students and their parents view agents, depending on where in the world they live.”

Overall, Why Students Use Agents offers an invaluable snapshot of the fragmented agent industry worldwide. East Asian students were found to be most likely to use an agent with 48% saying they had contacted or planned to contact an agent in the past, followed by African students (41%), South Asian (39%) and Latin American (30%).

Students from Europe, Latin America and China were said to use agents primarily for information on foreign institutions, while in India and Africa advice on obtaining a visa was most important. The report also identified a growing need across the group for help with visas and applications, reflecting the tightening of immigration policies in the UK, US and Australia over the past few years.

NOW TO THE WELL PUBLICISED AUSTRALIAN KNIGHT REPORT:

Some excerpts from the report… (Full report on http://www.immi.gov.au/students/knight/ )

  • This is not to say that these agents were necessarily acting unlawfully or that many agents do not give genuine assistance to students and education providers. The point is, if the conditions are created for some agents to act opportunistically, they will do so.
  • If DIAC retains the requirement that all AL2‐4 applicants who apply online must use a registered agent, this could go some way towards monitoring and controlling the conduct of these agents.
  • Just as there is a variety of agents, there is also a variety of attitudes to them. These attitudes fall into three broad categories: ignore them; license and empower them; work cooperatively with agents but informally rather than formally. My own attitude broadly falls between the second and third categories.
  • While some education providers are moving in the direction of less reliance on agents, they continue to be a fact of life. And, in many cases, they play a very positive role. I do not consider refusing to engage with agents to be a viable option for DIAC.
  • I support the promotion of agent professionalism and self‐regulation by requiring providers to only use education agents who:
    1. belong to a professional association where one exists;
    2. have completed an appropriate training course; and
    3. comply with their home country requirements.
  • DEEWR should also continue its role in leading the development of an international approach to influencing education agent behaviour, with the aim of developing a statement of agreed principles for ethical recruitment by agents.

While Agents are indeed critical and here to stay, we need to move away from the debate on whether agents are required. The experts who have been arguing for a ban on use of agents need to study the British Council and Australia’s Knight reports carefully. The strategy should be more towards…

We need better monitoring of agents and more effective sanctions against agents who act unethically.

Aug 10 2011

We often criticize private education providers; sometimes we are wrong too… They donot just grab opportunities, they take lead too.

There is an advert in THE AGE that clearly holds the mirror to the Australian Government. This advert released by ACPET is simply repeating what has been said so many times already that it has ceased to startle us. An industry body that has always been acknowledged as a stakeholder is not advertising to get the desired attention of the government is something that is bothersome indeed.

 The Age 10 Aug 20110001.tif

Dodgy Colleges and Shonky agents have for far too long been held scapegoats for the chaos that runs in the industry and I guess it is now time to include Australian Government’s snail-pace approach to policy changes post various reviews (we saw it with the Baird review and now with the Knight review) into the factors that has possibly run Australia out of the reckoning even for non-Dodgy institutions and for non-Shonky agents. Time is of essence and we are all losing time. Some Universities (not just institutions) are losing budgets and staff too. Australia loses friends within and outside.

Come on Ozzie, you can do better. Even Indian ministers and bureaucrats do things quicker. I guess I am wrong when I make this comparison but it will bring you to ponder on the similarities between India and Australia once again. India deserves Australia and Australia deserves India, with or without me.

Feb 18 2011

Mirroring of Immigration Policies leading to a boring and flat world indeed…

A perfect theory till NZ played spoiler. I present my “cut and paste” hypothesis suggesting that immigration policies are being copied from one nation to another.

There was a time when the immigration policies, post study work and part time privileges varied from one country to another. These gave certain competitive advantages to each other. Even within UK there was a difference in post study work opportunities between Scotland and England. While there is no real reason to believe that those differences harmed anyone, over the last few years, too-frequent exchanging of notes and aping of regulations has not just led to similar and sometimes exactly-same privileges being offered by one and all.

 

Australia offered part time work permission for 20 hours per week and the UK started copying that. NZ and others too followed each other. Ireland and Canada introduced work permission and what was exactly-same was the number of hours each of them allowed the students to work during the study semester.

Then arrived the post-study-work privileges. Scotland introduced the Fresh Talent Initiative allowing students to work for 2 years post study. No just rest of the UK followed course, even Australian experts who often precede others in their initiatives, found logic in it to introduce a 485 subclass visa for graduating students to gain experience post their studies with an option to move on to other more permanent visa categories. NZ too around the same period introduced a job search visa that allowed students to find a job and then get a work permit. Canada too has a work permit though often that route is taken as a pathway to permanent residency. The OPT (Optional Practical Training) option in USA offers roughly the same goal. Hence the students had an option to gain some experience even without the permanent residency option.

The speeches of the immigration ministers too seem to be a cut and paste jobs.

“We have been clear that we will do nothing to prevent those coming here to study degree level courses and will protect our world class academic institutions above and below degree level. So the universities, all of whom are highly trusted sponsors of foreign students, should not worry. We want to make sure that every student who comes to this country is a legitimate student following a legitimate course.”

“Stricter control will be in the best interest of legitimate students. Some of those who come to study at less reputable institutions are genuinely in search of education which they do not receive. They may have been misled by questionable agents overseas or by these colleges.”

I will not be surprised if any of you assume the above to be from the speech of the Australian Immigration Minister. The reality is that this is an extract from his UK counterpart and that too very recently. The same content and very similarly drafted.

Not just them even media is ensuring generalizations. The quickest scapegoats they find in any conflict related to international students to be the education agents. The recent hungama over the US’s Tri Valley University scam once again got the agents to be seen in bad light for no fault of theirs. Now there is sufficient evidence that most of the students who ended up in Tri Valley were not recruited or counseled by agents in India at all but had moved from other institutions in USA exploiting loopholes in the system. The visa office too had bungled in some cases in giving the visas. Anyway, media and also some experts targeted agents and suggested that Indian Government should regulate dodgy agents.

In cricket, New Zealand has a reputation at being spoilers even if they cannot win. My theory too promoting a flat world was spoiled by this beautiful island nation. It is a delight to read the statement of NZ Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman of yesterday.

“Not only does New Zealand gain from the economic benefits of having them study here, many international students stay on providing longer-term benefits by contributing their skills to our workforce and economy,’’ Dr Coleman says.

‘’Another plus for fee-paying foreign students is the recent introduction of interim visas which allows them to continue studying while applying for visas to further their studies. This will smooth the enrolment process for education providers.’’

The press release goes on to say: Students from India had the highest rate of transition to work (72 percent) followed by students from China (43 percent). Similarly, students from India also had the highest rate of transition to permanent residence (47 percent), followed by students from China (23 percent).

The research also found 68 percent of former international students were in fulltime employment 18 months after gaining permanent residence. Nearly one-third – 31 percent – worked in professional occupations and 62 percent worked in a skilled job.

Full text on this link.

While Minister Coleman may have played spoiler to my “cut and paste” theory, he has indeed re-established NZ’s reputation at being a thinking country and one that avoids aping other nations.

Whether right or wrong, it is indeed ensuring that our world is not totally flat. We don’t know the future though.

 

Feb 5 2011

Is the AL change sufficient to arrest the fall in Indian student numbers to OZ?

Assessment Level change for 573 is the single most positive news in the industry in the last year. It resulted due to sheer objectivity on the part of the decision takers and also considerable level of formal and informal lobbying aimed at explaining the disadvantage the visa requirements were causing to some genuine students. Now that it will make visas for the University bound students easier from April 2011, there is an expectation already that this will result in a reversal of the student-number trend that Australia finds itself in. This is not just a premature assessment or unrealistic expectation but is rather naïve.

Student numbers have fallen dramatically but totally on expected lines and to figures that has been predicted quite accurately, not just by myself but by most “in the know”. Experts took their time and once they overcame the bout of denial and a period of gazing at outdated statistics, they have given the reasoning for the fall in student numbers to 1)Security Concerns following the hyped reporting of the Melbourne incidents, 2)Student Visa hurdles posed by the AL4 assigned to category 573, 3)Period of relative confusion related to migration regulations and Post-study-work opportunities and 4)Forex changes that made the Aussie dollar dearer. In changing order of preference according to their own leanings.

Australia has now attempted at addressing these causes and waits for an effect. While the security issue has been addressed particularly in Melbourne and there has not been any Nitin Garg or Shrawan Kumar type incident for well over a year now, it will take some time and positive media for the security concerns to be removed from the minds of students and their parents. Student visas have been made easier for University bound students with the proposed AL change. The new migration system has been announced and there remains some pathways to gain experience in Australia post studies especially for those with higher levels of English and with skills in demand.

However, the issue of forex changes making Australian education dearer has not been addressed yet. When I point it to the experts that they are wrong in concluding the forex to be an uncontrollable factor, they do give me a good ear when I lay out the prescription. It basically relates to the first chapter in any economics text book. The price is determined and should be determined by supply and demand. In the current situation when the supply of places at the Universities is in surplus and the demand needs to be worked upon, the only method to do so is to ensure that the price “in Rupees” is kept at competitive levels to the options that the students have across the world. I am aghast to find Universities increasing the fees in 2011 even when the demand is poor. This is pushing them out of the consideration completely. In-fact, what they should be doing is to keep the fees at 2010 levels and offer a special “India bursary” to all Indian students which for a year could bring the fees down and hence help the attempt to excite the market again.

Once the institutions become aware of this requirement from their end and have addressed it, they should then aggressively arrive at the market and once again begin the promotions for quality Australia Education. “Go Ozzie Go” indeed.

Australian Government Departments too need to raise their resources and engage public relations stalwarts and image consultants. I am told that companies such as Counselage of Suhail Seth represents the British interests and do a good job (!). Prominent promotions highlighting the quality of Australian University Studies when coupled with Public Relations campaigns will definitely act as catalyst and in two years, Australia can once again be at the top of consideration for the Indian students.

Several ends to tie and they are getting there. My problem remains that my patience is running out and the interest in Australian education in India is losing momentum. Any delay will make it all even tougher. I am going to do my bit. What about you?

Nov 25 2010

2010 report-card and 2011 prediction: Demand from India for International Destinations

With 2010 Indian Student Data available for all major destinations and with UK too showing a huge decline(40%), is it a depression in the industry or a mere correction causing a “depression”!!!

depression |diˈpre sh ən|
noun

severe despondency and dejection, typically felt over a period of time and accompanied by feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy.
• a long and severe recession in an economy or market : the depression in the housing market.

Britain: 2010 and a prediction for 2011.

Now that the UK visa numbers for 2010 are being reported (see link) and with clear indications that the total number from India who will enter Britain for their education during the year to be not more than 35000 (a fall of 40% in 2010 over 2009), the corrections are truly in place and is being expected to finally settle around 25000-30000 per year by 2011. It may be due to the spurt last year was fuelled by sudden loosening of visas that led to thousands ending up in UK even without proper English communication abilities. The correction had to occur and was predicted even on the very first day when the loosening had been initiated. Britain’s total intake from India is likely to hover around 25000 and certainly under 30000. There are also whispers that UK may cut the 2-year post study work permission that now exists for graduating International students. If this happens, the numbers can shrink further.

America: 2010 and a prediction for 2011.

Thankfully, the reporting of the enrolment statistics has a mention of the total visa grants and so the newspapers have put that in right context for the first time. China overtaking India in total enrolments in 2010 is hardly of significance as was India leading in enrolments in 2009, a red-herring. I predict the Chinese numbers to also lower in coming years. The actual demand for a destination comes from the total number of fresh student visas from one country for another. The reports (see link) show that there were 32000 visas from India to USA in one year and I feel that this data is actually a comparable stats to UK’s 57000 of 2009 and my gut feeling is that in 2010, USA received less than 30000 students from India. What will happen in future will depend on how much the US institutions progress in adapting to the education agent-assisted recruitment. If there is progress and if more established University brands accept agents, the numbers can swell and USA can take a clear lead. However the marketing period for 2011 intake for the quality and more rigorous institutions is actually over already considering the lead time in place and one can expect realistically the Indian numbers to USA to hover around 30000 or even less.

Australia: 2010 and a prediction for 2011.

Australia had led the internationalization at one time in history but now is becoming an example of how a country continues to blunder to non-existence of the clichéd “whole of government” approach to Internationalization of education. The student numbers from India in their immigration stats for July 2009 to June 2010 over the earlier period fell by 77% to about 12000. (see my earlier blog with details on link). My gut feel is that if we look at the calendar year 2010, it will be only about 10000 or even less. The question being asked in all quarters is whether it will go down further in 2011 or will it begin to rise. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. It was expected that Immigration will begin welcoming the quality students and turn on the tap once again for them. Especially when the risk of abuse of Assessment level mechanism being low following 1)so called PR vocational courses losing shine and 2)packaging route to enable easier visas through the higher category has been blocked. However, the “Immigration” continues to be guided by its experience of fraud in student applications though I continue to hope that the checks in place will be able to prune out the rogue from all applicants without disadvantaging genuine students. I feel fatigued from the various submissions made again and again and this fatigue is going to set in also with institutions and various lobby groups who seem to be again actively rushing to Canberra in a bid to get ministers and departments to understand their panic. I also believe that there exists misplaced arguments that lowering of the AL for category 573 will lead to its abuse again. Each passing day is resulting in lower prospects for a revival for the industry. The institutions have to take blame for their late start in lobbying. For a long time the institutions stayed put in the belief that the loss of numbers from India can be made up from China and I remember warning the leading providers that Chinese students enter the process at the ELICOS and pathway stage and so the impact only shows up one year later at the Universities. Which has happened now and so they have finally woken up. Better late than never.

Canada: 2010 and a prediction for 2011.

All reports show that Canada is doing a few things right. The SPP system in place has solved the muddle about the private institutions recruiting from India and given a clear direction. The system is working and the institutions are happy. The market is buzzing too. All indications are that that Canada is the story to watch in 2010-11 and should hit their highest student numbers ever from India. And why not! Canada also does-not hides behind experts that advice delinking of education and work pathways. They are also not compromising in anyway with regards to English requirements or funds and the SPP system is a model that should be adopted by Australia and NZ too as both has a developed private institution setup that is hungry for students. The University sector is also actively wooing the Indian students and recently a number of baits have been announced by way of scholarships. (see link on a major visit by the Universities to India earlier this month).My prediction for 2011 is that the country will continue to show good student numbers and if the institutions can come around to greater coverage of the Indian sub-continent and not just focus on North and West, Canada can top the total student visa numbers across destinations from India by 2012-13.

New Zealand: 2010 and a prediction for 2011

NZ that went up from in 2009 may actually have reached its most limit in 2010 at around  6500 approvals. (This data is the changed figure from the initial blog based on revised inputs received on 26th November 2010. Visa grants in calendar year 2010 till 25th November was 6187 and my estimate is that by the close of 2010 it will still remain around 6500. NZ saw an increase of 10% last year and is once again exhibiting about 10-15% growth this year. While the number of visa applications in 2009 and 2010 are roughly the same, the growth is largely due to reducing rejection rates of visas). The issue is not of the numbers but where they are going within NZ. The growth in 2009-10 was largely due to numbers ending up at the various private colleges and not as many to the Universities. It is now being expected that the numbers will stay well within this total for next few years but more will end up with institutions of repute. The University sector has fine-tuned their marketing in a collaborating format and the results are around the corner for them. The ITPs too have added more and more postgraduate and graduate diploma courses to be able to cater to Indian students looking at studies post their Bachelors. The visa system is finally showing evidence of maturity and the fund transfer scheme will make it easier for borderline students to be able to go ahead beyond the border. NZ too has a future here though my gut feeling is that the numbers will not grow too much but will end up with better institutions now. What is bothering me is the reports that seem to suggest that Education NZ may be merged with Trade NZ and hence going on the line that AEI lost its promotions and marketing role to Austrade. (see link)

Other Destinations: 2010 and a prediction for 2011

Singapore continues to grow but will (or has already) hit its potential in India. The test will be when know of the experience of majority of the Indian graduates from the second tier Singapore institutions with the job market in Singapore or elsewhere. I remain a little circumspect and will wait on for the reports to emerge.

Dubai and UAE has ceased to grow from India in my opinion. There is an audience but that audience is very limited.

China became a destination for Indian medical students primarily due to aggressive marketing by certain education marketers. Screening tests that graduating students have to take in India in line with Medical Council of India guidelines to be eligible as practitioners are reportedly fairly tough and there are several who are not able to clear it in their first attempt. Hence to say that China as such is not a destination but is (or was) driven by the access to cheaper qualification and in hope for their acceptance in India primarily as doctors will not be misplaced. There was a time that USSR was a prime destination for such students when MCI recognized the Soviet Union qualifications for the profession. Now that Medical Council of India has the screening test in place, the time for China as a destination is limited and the future of such students fairly risky. (Read this link to understand the risk)

Malaysia and Thailand have tried marketing in India and barring a few exceptions in AIT in Bangkok or Monash in Malaysia, I would feel that appeal for them in India would remain limited despite cost and visa attractiveness.

Certain European countries such as Switzerland (for Hospitality), France (for Management) and Germany (for Engineering and fee-free education) may hold some interest in India but will never emerge as a major education destination because India students aim at English-speaking destinations.

Conclusion and Overall student trends in 2010-11:

What we need to note is that the total number of Indian students going overseas to study has declined for sure and when we add up the numbers for all the major destinations, it is clear to me that in 2010, there will be less than 120000 students in total who may have travelled out of India on student visas (Despite indications that Canada and NZ have shown a growth). This is an approximate decline of 30% indicating a recession in the industry. I fear a further 15-20% decline in 2011 before it settles down around 100000 students and what will be of interest is the market share of the various destinations then.

The reasons for decline certainly stem from the US recession two years ago followed up with media hyped concerns on student security in Australia and coupled by tightening of post study work opportunities and student visa policies. Some may try to assume this to be a result of growth of Indian education sector that many are opting to study in India itself. I disagree by saying that while the intentions are very much there, no real ground development has taken place yet to convince me. Beyond a few of the Indian private colleges of debatable repute, there are also stories of action against the deemed statuses of some colleges. Foreign University Bill is yet to be passed and even if they are passed, it will take years before capacity can be increased in India.

The fact that recession is very well set in our Industry is also indicative by the fact that there are job-losses and no real indications of immediate upturn. It may actually be camouflaged as a much needed correction but certainly this correction is going to last for a few years and is causing a “depression” in our minds if not in technicality.