Category Archives: Education Reforms

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…

Nov 9 2011

What’s happening to UK Education? Who and what are driving the agenda? Will the “wrong” bring votes?

I have written on it earlier and am now seeing many comment on the same lines… A write up in Guardian shouted WE MUST TACKLE VISA ABUSE, BUT NOT AT THE COST OF GENUINE STUDENTS… It elaborates that “Tough talk on immigration will frighten away the talent our colleges need.” (See LINK)

UKBA and the various spokespeople have learnt the use of negative vocabulary to such an extent that it become difficult to imagine anything positive in UK being an attractive destination for International Students. Yes, when they summarize with delight that their clampdown and measures are “beginning to bite” and when they claim that there has been a “wide spread” abuse of student visas, you begin to notice that they are not really complaining or pointing a finger to the abuse as such but actually scoring a political point through all this that the system in place by the previous regime was leaky… Let me make it clear… An International Student, An education agent and An institution recruiting students are all legit in making use of the available options and liberties. The job of making the policy is not theirs and if they have made use of the options then they should not be held responsible at all…

Coming back to the topic… I agree with the writer that…

International students are much sought after across the world. They bring valuable cultural, diplomatic and economic benefit with them. They contribute £5bn to UK earnings each year, making a huge difference to local economies. The students come to the country and then leave, without recourse to public funds. Of those who stay, many end up teaching and carrying out world-leading research. In a deeply competitive and global market, inter–national staff make up a large proportion of university staff, without whom many departments would not be viable, or at best would be significantly weakened.

The above advantages are more of an immediate term benefits that international students bring. I would like to add that the long term benefits are far reaching too. There are political and diplomatic advantages that international students deliver. I noticed that one of the reasons why “two years ago”, UK received less negative press in India when it was facing the same issues as that in Australia over college closures, why the unhappy student stories reached Indian media coverage to lesser intensity and why the Indian political class did not focus on the UK issue to the same level as they did with the Ozzies… is the fact that most of the players controlling Indian media, Indian polity and also Indian academia were all possessing some British education themselves. If you noticed the NEWSHOUR debates in those times, you could hear the British Educated commentators and image-builders talk in quite nasty terms on Australian history and made it look so inferior to the British strengths in education. I want to also state that whenever I interact with the Head-Master of a leading Indian School who is a thorough Brit himself, I find a clear disdain for any introduction of Australia to his school. I felt offended when he told me offhand that the students from India will face “racial bias” in Australia. I just did not expect it from him as he should have clearly seen the hype that was built up in a purposive manner by certain players at that time. And if he did notice the inaccuracies, he as the senior most in a school with responsibility of using “Knowledge as Light” should have corrected the mis-perception in the student mind-space…

Returning to the topic, I do think that the damage that the UK policies are inflicting is far worse. It is gradually building the word in the country that “Indian students are NOT WELCOME” in UK anymore and this message is due to the direction that the Government of the country has taken. How sad indeed… I referred this as “colonizers being fearful of reverse colonization” in an earlier blog and I would maintain that this “fear” too is such a negative word and destined to bring in more fear. Let the unemployment begin at the Universities once the number of International students come down… God Bless the country…

Before I close, I want to share the quality of perspectives that often comments to write-ups bring to the table… The quoted article had a comment by a reader:

The abuse of so-called “student” visas has been an open scandal for years. Hundreds of thousands of people with negligible skills and no intention of studying got in this way. Hundreds of bogus “colleges” flourished.

During all this time, reputable universities sat back and did nothing about it, as though it did not concern them. Well, they are now reaping the bitter fruit of their poisonous indifference. If you have no morals and turn a blind eye to scams, don’t be surprised if when the crackdown comes everyone things you are as bad, or almost as bad, as the scamsters themselves.

As to your point about genuine foreign students, you say:

“International students are much sought after across the world. They bring valuable cultural, diplomatic and economic benefit with them.”

I agree with this up to a point. But many postgrad science and engineering courses in the UK are now 100% Chinese. Is that really what we want? To be a knowledge giveaway for our industrial competitors? What about educating our own slightly-less-talented youth? Surely the national payback from that is many times higher than the once-off fees from the foreign students ?

And this is how another reader rebutted the above comment:

Another unthinking example of our current Government’s habit of ruling by gimmick without the wit to think through the consequences.

By carelessly making all foreign students feel unwelcome they risk a substantial loss of much needed national income. They risk the closure of many university departments who remain financially viable only through the high fee income from foreign students, and, although hard to quantify, they will diminish our global influence through the ‘soft power’ accruing from this sector.

As usual, they formulate and express policy not because it is in the interests of this country, but in order to appeal to the prejudices of the ill-informed (as illustrated already by some of the comments above).

“But many postgrad science and engineering courses in the UK are now 100% Chinese. Is that really what we want ?”

Hardly 100% I am sure – but it’s a sure bet that British students in these departments would be denied the opportunity of they weren’t kept viable by the foreign intake.

At least the Chinese Government have the wit to seek the very best education for their brightest – unlike ours. The high proportion of Chinese post-grads in many places is simply due to the fact that the necessary finance is available to them – unlike our own students for whom the provision of grants is woefully and short-sighted inadequate.

Don’t you agree that the comments to an article or even a blog are so useful in completing the story… This is where the internet is scoring over the print…

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 16 2011

“Overseas Education Agents” following “Computer Training Institutes”

As I was driving to my place of work this morning, Green and Orange posters announcing Overseas Education Fairs of two companies (both holding it on the same day) jostled for my attention. It is not the posters per se that is causing me to pen my thoughts but certainly it reminded me of the era when I also put up posters for my computer institutes. Two years ago, we would have all frowned on such posters being put up on the streets and would possibly have thought of it is crass commercialization. I am guilty of putting these posters up too. Times have changed and we have changed with time. Albeit lowering our own set parameters of standards. There was a time when we did not advertise in the classified columns of the newspapers in our industry but today that seems to be the most sought after spot.

What I was reminded of was the phase through mid-nineties when similar promotions were carried out by computer training institutes. In those days, I had franchises of a national brand in multiple locations and the computer training industry was the industry to watch. Brands such as NIIT, APTECH and BRILLIANTS commanded huge franchise fees and were the attractive business propositions for people such as myself and my friends.

There are many parallels between the two industries.

  • What the Computer Institutes did in 1990s, it seems that Overseas Education Consultants are doing today. Mass promotions using posters, danglers, kiosks, bill boards… and classified advertising.
  • Franchising was the way for the computer institutes to set up shop around the country and Franchising has and is being used by many amongst us to expand. The logic being that if Coke and Pepsi and McDonald and KFC can franchise, why we can not… Why indeed not?
  • Computer Institutes promised jobs and Overseas Education consultants promise part time jobs and some even go on to assure migration.
  • Fairs and Exhibitions were/are used by both to lure students and sell dreams.
  • Both had the ultimate seller as: post study jobs overseas.
  • Scholarships being used as bait are often advertised by both the computer institutes and overseas agents.

I can go on and on listing the similarities and now that the point is made, would move on to share my fear…

  • Computer training institutes shut shop when the end users realized that for their day to day computing they did not need to be taught the programming languages and in the Overseas Education Industry too we are seeing many students moving away from agents when they feel that there are certain steps that they can do on their own without any hand holding.

Maybe I do need to be reminded that specialized and focused computer training institutes of that era have continued to survive through continuous adaptations and only the fringe ones have close shop. This is true indeed and possibly overseas education counselors will survive too with certain adaptations.

I would hope that all the like minds will meet and set some basic parameters that we all adhere to so that the quality and standards of the service are maintained. Amongst them will be issues related to the correctness of advertising. There have been adverts with agents listing over 60 institutions across several countries at an exhibition and students attending such fairs return with comments that they were surprised to see as few as 5-10 stalls and the agent pointing to a disclaimer in the advert that the ad is a general one and that not all the advertised institutions will attend the event. This is clear misrepresentation and I may say even cheating of the students and shows the agent in a poor light over his or her own standards. This blog is not about naming or giving examples but believe me, more than one agent is guilty of this conduct. I am willing to even stop putting up the street-side posters if we all can agree that it lowers the standards of the game that we play.

Talking of exhibitions, I do think that all of us give an impression that ours is the best and the biggest of the fairs. The person getting confused is the student and there is a fatigue setting in his/her mindset. And he stops attending any of the events. The same institutions get sold by all and sometimes on the same day. The days of huge turnouts in exhibitions are now over and most of us go back happy if we have 100-200 at our events. Come on guys, we can do better. We can lift our game for sure.  There are ways out. Why should we try and compete with exhibitions organized by British Councils and/or Austrade as they are not agents and hence why can we not avoid placing our dates around these two fairs. Why have deceptive adverts such as one that I saw that did not even list the name of the organizing agent and used a similar-sounding email and web-link that gave an impression of the event being organized by the Canadian government. To be honest, sometimes I can understand the zeal to get that extra business.

I guess I am now drifting from the topic of the blog and must put it to an end before I am seen to be tearing into my competitors. Honestly, I am equally guilty and want to share an artwork (from a gallery in Berlin) that was exhibited at the recently held Art Summit in Delhi where one of my company’s poster is seen prominently on the streets of Kolkata. The artist, I am informed is acclaimed Suhasini Kejriwal and the work is priced at around Euro 10000. The point being made is simple: lets lift our game and lets work together to ensure that the overseas education consultants don’t end up like the computer training institutes. Let’s continue to think and develop standards that apply to all including me.

Feb 7 2011

INDIA: New law on overseas university agents (in the offing!)

Newslinks today inform: A new law making it mandatory for all education agents to register with the Indian government or face fines or jail terms, has been proposed in the wake of reports that some recruitment agents have misled students into joining fake universities abroad, such as the allegedly dubious California-based Tri-Valley University.

However, the interesting thing is that I(yes) have been quoted extensively even though I have never met the journalist or given an interview on the proposed bill in the last few months for sure. Either the journalist picked up one of my earlier comments or has begun to understand my thought process, I would possibly have stated as has been quoted. Just yesterday I was watching Manoj Shyamalan’s SIGNS and hence, even this thought that someone can read my mind and quote me without meeting or corresponding with me is quite freakish. Anyway, will let it be… Guys, take it that I said what has been written!!! Only that my name is Ravi and not Rajiv… Global Reach indeed is an education consultancy that I head as its Managing Director (not director). Read on rest of it on this link.

Sep 10 2010

UK Immigration Minister signals “review” of student visas… Has UK learnt its lesson? I doubt.

Deccan Chronicle reported on 7th September that British immigration minister, Mr Damian Green, is due to announce a crackdown on student visas. (See link.)

Mr Green, in an interview with Radio 5 Live on Monday morning mentioned his India visit. “I’m going to see if [visas] are benefiting university students. We’ve found people calling themselves collegiates but instead had a room above a kebab shop … I recently came back from India where I saw rows of shops where literally every other shop was offering visas to study in England. The authorities in India want to cooperate, as they don’t want their students conned by unscrupulous agents there,” he said.

Guys, are you surprised!!! Ever since UK lifted the flood gates more than a year ago, I have been predicting that a “review” will be needed sooner than later…

In an attempt to better understand what the Immigration Minister is saying, I visited the speech made to Royal Commonwealth Society by Home Office Immigration Minister Damian Green on 6th September 2010. Here are the excerpts from that speech:

Of course it is true that there have been many changes in the system since 2004 so it would be wrong to extrapolate directly, but the possible consequences are clear. If we continue to have a fifth of each cohort of students staying long term we will have very high net migration numbers indeed.

To those who say that these are precisely the brightest and the best who Britain needs, I would say let’s look at the facts. We estimate that around half, I repeat, around half of the students coming here from abroad only, are coming to study a degree level (or above) course.

Most people think foreign students come here to attend our top universities and of course these are the students we want to attract. But the real picture of the parts of Britain’s education system that attract foreign students is much more varied. It includes the publicly-funded further education sector, private vocational colleges, language schools, independent schools and many partnerships between higher and further educational institutions. The foreign students attending these various establishments may, or frankly may not be, the brightest and the best.

I want a student visa system which encourages the entry of legitimate students coming to study legitimate courses.  For me that certainly means students coming to study at universities, students who are equipped to study the courses to which they have subscribed and who fulfil their academic obligations, students who at the end of their period of leave return to their country of origin. That is good for the students concerned, it is good for the institutions they study in, and it is good for Britain. Indeed study of this kind has been one of our national success stories ever since Margaret Thatcher took the decision to expand our higher education sector and it certainly brings significant economic benefits to the UK.

However, it also means that we need to understand more clearly why a significant proportion of students are still here more than five years after their arrival. And we also need a system which can scrutinise effectively, and if necessary take action against, those whose long-term presence would be of little or no economic benefit. Of course we are the ideal country for others to come to learn English. But I want to ensure those who come here to study at language schools or any other institutions play by the rules and leave when their visas expire.

We estimate we are bringing more than ninety thousand people into Britain every year to do courses below degree level at private institutions.  We need to decide whether this is right and also whether it is the best thing in each case for the students themselves, given the high financial commitments required of them.  When I visited India last month I found the authorities and education sector representatives were happy to work with us to raise the quality of applicants and also to make life difficult for the unscrupulous agents who too often prey on them.

It is beyond dispute that Britain’s universities contain some of the best in the world and that they need to be competing for the world’s best students. The immigration system should help them in this. But this does not mean that every student visa issued is necessarily benefiting Britain.

So is he saying that the system put into place last year has not worked and that policy is going to be re-jigged?  Listen on to what he continues to say in that speech… (full text of the speech available on this link)

There is no doubt that by the end of their period the last government wanted to bring immigration under control. But we’ve learnt the Points-Based System is not enough on its own. It needs bolstering in two important ways. Annual limits on work visas, just as they have in other open and successful economies: and a much closer focus on who is qualifying under each section of our immigration system. We absolutely need sustainable immigration levels. This will relieve pressure on public services, and stop immigration being such a delicate political issue. At the same time, we must be confident enough to say Britain is open for business and study to those who will make this a better country, and a more open society.

Its like history repeating itself again and again and lessons of one country not being learnt by another. The Australian Immigration Minister Senator Chris Evans indicates this in his media release on 8th September when he states:

‘This was one of the factors which led to the unsustainable explosion in student numbers. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, are now dealing with the same problem and are looking to follow Australia’s example by tightening immigration controls.’

Senator Evans said Labor had already introduced regulations which were proportional to the risk posed by different categories of prospective students.

Australia now has a minority government akin to Britain and while the care-taking Immigration minister is not called Green, they have indeed got Greens in the government. (The new Immigration Minister will be appointed by the new PM, Miss Julia Gillard, next week…)

The story is the same and players are the same. The affected country is India. The private colleges woo students from India. And the interestingly the scapegoats will be the education agents from India who are so generally stereotyped as unscrupulous…

I am also an education agent and not unscrupulous for sure… Excuse me!!!

Sep 10 2010

Indian message to Australia: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” and random thoughts on the Australian Elections.

Indian expectations from the new Aussie Government…

This is being penned from Sydney where I have been keenly observing the dynamics of the Australian politics over the last few weeks. To me it has been so very interesting and one that I can easily relate to (coming from India). Minority Governments, a deal with Independents, last minute jigsaw and not much to decide between contending political parties is all too common in today’s India. Also like Indian political alliances between contrasting outfits, Australia too is seeing the Greens and the Labour and conservative Independents going with the Labour to form the Government.

I am often asked what can be expected from the current Government with regards to the “international education angle” in the “Indian” context and that does get one to start thinking. Is there really going to be any change? No. Not actually. Wasn’t Julia Gillard, the PM today, the education minister yesterday? Was she not the one who was the first Minister to visit India to soothe its nerves in September last year and how can she absolve herself from the gross in-action on part of the Victorian Police and also by the federal government’s non-regulation of the private colleges for such a long time.

Anyway, we all learn with time and even though I would avoid trying to read much into the words uttered by the politicians, I do believe that continuity is the best medicine at this time. There is a policy that is emerging in Australia in favour of quality education providers and in favour of the genuine migrants who bring in skills to Australia. We may have to forget the emotions and understand that at the end of the day Australia needs international education export and needs skilled immigrants. Both are linked and will remain linked in some manner. The other advantage of continuity is that the current Indian Government and new Australian Government have been talking to each other through the last one year and almost a dozen visits by Australian senior leaders reciprocated by 3-4 visits by Indian ministers has led to a level of understanding now. Kapil Sibal as India’s education minister (Minister of HRD) has hit off with Julia Gillard apparently and that is good too. With no real reshuffling expected of the bureaucrats, we can expect the joint working group continuing with its dialogue.

I am further encouraged by the fact that Greens who are now a part of the ruling coalition has been talking through the campaign for less vindictive border control and better treatment of migrants including the illegal migrants and asylum seekers. Marry this to “stop the boat” campaign of the Labour government and you are certain to get a balanced immigration policy.

At the micro level to my industry, I am expecting a fairly quick call with regards to easing of visa norms for the “university bound” students and this will be really welcome. For those who understand technicalities, I am advocating lowering of Assessment Level for India for category 573 and acceptance of Pearson’s and TOEFL in addition to IELTS. I also hope for less “anti-migrant” noises that were previously made for the domestic vote-banks, now that elections are out of the way.

I have been however desirous of observing if the Indian Media was following the Australian elections and whether it understood its relevance to India. The sad truth is that there was hardly any coverage outside of wire reports from time to time. Even on the day of the final result on this Friday, very few newspapers gave it prominence and even the internet sites of NDTV and IBN failed to even mention it. Hence pleasantly surprised I was when my hometown newspaper (The Telegraph in Calcutta) carried an editorial on the election result yesterday. While I don’t agree to the first paragraph of the article on this link where it claims that most attackers were “white Australians” (reality: attackers were of mixed race and also Indians) and most attacks ended in death (aware of only one death from the attacks and most deaths in the last few years were handiworks of other Indians), the editorial commentary on the election result including the caution that even one single by-election can bring down the government before its tenure ends, display a good understanding of the current Australian politics. Quoting from this editorial from The Telegraph (Kolkata, India) below:

So India may well hope that Mr Rudd’s successor and party colleague, Julia Gillard, who became the first female prime minister of her country, would be more proactive in making Australia a safer and more equitable place for immigrants. Such an expectation is not unwarranted. After all, Ms Gillard has cobbled together a ‘rainbow coalition’ with crucial support from one Green and three Independent members of parliament. And the Greens want the new government to focus on humane treatment of asylum-seekers and other foreigners in Australia. So this is Ms Gillard’s best chance of salvaging the global image of her country even as she tries to repair the schisms within her party.

Earlier this week, I was hosted by UNSW to pay my homage to the newly installed bust of Gandhi. The bust, I am told, was presented by the Government of India to the State Government of NSW and the state Government chose UNSW grounds as the appropriate location for its installation.

What an appropriate symbol at this time…  What was even more appropriate was the choice of his words that are inscribed on the sculpture…

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Aug 26 2010

India’s Advertising “watchdog” introduces “code” for Education Adverts… High Time indeed!

ASCI introduces advertising code for educational sector; puts draft code up for public review.

I HAVE REPRODUCED THE BELOW MATTER FROM PRESS ARTICLES. I WELCOME THIS MOVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY AS YOU CAN OBSERVE IN MY EARLIER BLOGS, I HAVE COMMENTED TO MISLEADING ADVERTS ISSUED BY SOME OF OUR NEW  “INDIAN” PRIVATE COLLEGES.

Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), the self-regulatory body for the advertising content of the Indian advertising industry, will introduce a new set of advertising guidelines for the educational sector. The new advertising content guidelines will apply to ads of all educational institutions, coaching classes and educational programs. The draft of the guidelines has been put up for review, feedback and suggestions on ASCI’s official website – www.ascionline.org.

The Council has called its members, educationists, institutions and the general public to send in their suggestions and feedback on the proposed guidelines by Monday, September 6, 2010 to, The Secretary General of ASCI, on email ids asci@vsnl.com; alan@ascionline.org.

The new set of guidelines takes note of the fact that a significant amount of advertising activity is currently happening in the education sector, reflecting the vast variety of educational programs being offered in the country. According to the recent Adex report, last year’s figures show that eight per cent of all advertising expenses in print media came from the educational sector, a significant increase as compared to advertising expenses just few years ago.

Speaking on the guidelines, Prof. Dhananjay Keskar, ASCI’s Chairman and Director, IBS Pune, said, “ASCI recognizes the role of educational institutions in building the country’s intellectual capital and the value parents place in them for getting the right education for their children. Unlike other tangible products and services, the value of education and training programs can only be judged by degrees and diplomas, which are advertised in a variety of ways. ASCI realises that a variety of these claims in advertisements need to be regulated through a set of guidelines tailor-made for the education sector.”

The proposed advertising guidelines for educational institutions, among other things, prohibits institutions and programs from claiming recognition, authorisation, accreditation, or affiliations without having proper evidence. The proposed guidelines also requires that name and place of the affiliated institution which provides degrees and diplomas on behalf of the advertiser who may not be accredited by a mandatory authority, is also prominently displayed in the ad.

Under the proposed guidelines, educational institutions will not be able to promise jobs, admissions, job promotions, salary increase, etc. without substantiating such claims and also assuming full responsibility in the same advertisement. The proposed guidelines discourages institutions from claiming success in placements, student compensations, admission to renowned institutes, marks and rankings, and topper student testimonials unless every such claim is substantiated with evidence.

“Recently, ASCI has been receiving several intra-industry complaints against claims being made in ads of various educational institutions. Many students and parents too have complained to ASCI against claims made in advertisements by educational institutions,” added Keskar.

After September 6, 2010, and based on the feedback received from the public and concerned stakeholders, the ASCI Committee will finalise the guidelines and put it up for ASCI Board’s approval. Once the Board approves the final draft, the guidelines will become a part of the ASCI’s Code for Self Regulation in Advertising.

Notably, the subject of advertising in educational sector was discussed in the recently held ASCI’s ‘Seminar on Marketing Responsibly’. An eminent panel of professionals and educationists had underlined the need for special guidelines for regulating advertising in the education sector in India along the lines of Self Regulatory Organisations (SRO) around the world such as in South Africa and Brazil.

In the recent past ASCI has put out specific Guidelines for advertisements in automobile and food & beverage sectors.