Apr 9 2012

Utter SVP chaos! Ozzie Universities to learn swimming, sans instructor or manual.

Streamlining Visa Processing is not really turning out to be as per design. The visa part of the processing may become so but rest of the process is jumbled up with little expectation of SVP enabling streamlining in practice for the forthcoming intake.

First some facts…

  • SVP was a decision taken by DIAC in late 2011 and announced at that time itself that it will be implemented to suit the mid year (July) intake of Universities in 2012. Keeping this in mind, an action plan did develop and Universities were almost cajoled into signing into it. It has been now implemented w.e.f. 24th March 2012.
  • The SVP looks very good on paper and if implemented properly, it will be a game changer and may really be the caffeine needed at this time.
  • Though the Universities have signed onto it, ONLY two institutions (one is “the leading” Private University and the other is a “one” Private Business Partner of an University) that has got its part right and has provided its agents with clear guidelines on the processes. All others have only forwarded and re-forwarded the immi web links and FAQ and the matrix as provided by DIAC with some vague guidelines indicating that work is in progress to get the act right.

It is true that the Universities have agreed to the SVP but interestingly the homework is so incomplete on the part of the Universities. One would have thought that the Universities will be ready with their checklists and requirements right on the date of DIAC implementation so that any student applying for a visa on the very first day, will be able to do so. But that did not happen. In an earlier blog I did point out some lacunae in SVP that required fixing but here, in this article, the focus is on efficient implementation of a policy that is agreed upon by the stake holders!

I don’t fault only the Universities on this but also DIAC for rushing the Universities into it without a realization that the skills that the Universities possess are primarily academic and has not much to do with entry clearance. They agreed to build this in but the time provided to them did not consider the manpower issues and also budgetary constraints that plague many of the institutions. Having said this, the Universities could have huddled and lobbied for this implementation to be pushed to a later date. They did not and hence they gave an impression that they were ready. Now they get what they deserve.

Let me share some real examples of the confusion.

A student who has to apply the visa for a Bachelors degree beginning with a six-month foundation where the program begins in April could only lodge visa today after going around in circles for a few weeks. The reason for the delay: Both the University and the Business Partner which runs the foundation were clue-less and without any set format for an undertaking or to gauge the financials.

The advise of the business partner institution was that they are not fully certain and so we should take advise of DIAC.

‘As far as we know there is no particular form to be filled for SVP.  We however recommend that you contact DIAC directly for confirmation.’

We did ask the DIAC and was advised to contact the University that has to take the onus under SVP. The response of the University was even more reflective of the confusion that exists currently. When we failed to get a reply from the admissions office in the first instance, a senior member of the marketing team was contacted. The reply on 5th April…

‘The streamline process has not been implemented yet so I am not sure what you are asking.’

What? My understanding was that the SVP was implemented on the 24th March itself… Has it been put on hold or am I missing a piece in the puzzle! We did correct the institution’s perception based on our perception but the issue regarding the visa lodgment remained and the student had to be served. And the issue regarding the confusion generally in the industry became even more obvious to me.

The DIAC was contacted again and we decided to go ahead with the lodgment ‘under SVP” but with as much of financial documents as possible and allowing every reason for the application to be approved.

This is not the only example. One institution was under the impression that while they will take time to figure out the SVP and their own document requirements, they planned to advise the agents to apply for the unsure cases under regular AL3 regulations. The precise question that bothered them was…

‘Is it true that if a university opts for SVP, then the university cannot tell its non registered agents that they will have to process applications non SVP.’

Once again, I did confirm from my understanding that for participating Universities and their business partners, there are no two channels. All applications for eligible programs have to be under SVP alone. Matter resolved but the point about the confusion on the part of education providers continue.

Not just education providers, some of these questions are leading to wrong advise being passed on by students too by some possibly more responsible education agents. In an all-India advertising dressed as editorial in Times of India, they advise the market…

‘Students who do not wish to be assessed under the SVP may continue to apply for their visa under the regular system in Sun-Class 573-AL 3(or as the case may be) where they have to show funds in acceptable format for a specified period of time.’

This is an incorrect advise in my opinion and I wonder where did the agent pick this up. The DIAC information session that was attended to by all active education agents certainly did not indicate this advice.

It is not just the Universities, their nominated business partners and their contracted agents who continue to live in the chaos, even the DIAC does…

Any education agent that lodges visas under eVisa will confirm that once they lodge the visa, the system requires them to attach Agent Checklist and other requirements that are dated November 2011 and requires all financial matrixes… even today under SVP when the financials can at the most be part of the “recommended” list of DIAC as per policy. Hence, the system at DIAC is taking its time to change when we would expect all such homework to be in order before the system is rolled out. We are talking about DIAC now and hence such shortcomings are not expected.

I have brought this to the attention of DIAC and have received a very helpful response. They will communicate this to the onshore processing unit and hopefully it will be fixed soon. Hence, in the meanwhile, the visa couldn’t be lodged under eVisa and went in for paper based processing.

In a way, this was good, since the general opinion of all stakeholders is that the Delhi post of DIAC is possibly much more efficient and responsive than any others. One institution wrote the following when they were shared with the “precise and clear” presentation made by DIAC’s Delhi post, within days of the changes…

I congratulate the processes taken by India, light years ahead of DIAC in PRC.

I agree with this for sure… SVP is a very good development if all can get their act together and implement it in a way that it does streamline international education industry overall.

NO DISCLAIMERS THIS TIME… All quotes are real and exact without any change in wordings. The purpose of the quotes was to make the larger point. The Universities can be thrown into the water but for them to be able to learn swimming, they do need an instructor and a manual… leadership is required too that can help mobilize this. Otherwise, they will drown and with them the hope for a revival too will drown.

Mar 28 2012

India’s university system in ‘deep crisis’

Unaccredited and often entirely fake colleges have sprung up all over India as demand for higher education accelerates. In the booming New Delhi suburb of Gurgaon, there are dozens of one-room shops offering degrees in engineering, management, pharmacy, nursing and computers.

By Rama Lakshmi, Published: March 27, Washington Post.

ALIGARH, India — After studying for two years to be a teacher, Anam Naqvi found out that the degree her school offers is worthless. Now, instead of attending classes and finishing a mandatory internship, she and her classmates protest every day outside the gate to their university in the northern city of Aligarh.

It is a story being replayed across many Indian cities. Poorly regulated, unaccredited and often entirely fake colleges have sprung up as demand for higher education accelerates, driven by rising aspirations and a bulging youth population.

“New colleges are mushrooming everywhere, but many are flouting norms,” said Nilofer Kazmi, director of the government’s regulatory commission for higher education. “Many are conducting courses that have no approval or accreditation from the government regulators.”

More than 5 million Indians enter the 15-to-24 age group every year, adding a demographic thrust to the demand for more colleges and universities. Properly educated and employed, these young people could bring the country a demographic dividend, the sort of surge in growth that buoyed many of the Asian “tiger” economies from the 1960s to the 1990s. But if India does not create high-quality colleges for its youths, it risks reaping a demographic disaster.

The higher education commission recently released a list of 21 “fake universities,” many of them no more than a mailing address or signboard hanging over a shop, temple or hole-in-the-wall office space. A government regulator that focuses on technical schools named 340 private institutions across India that run courses without its accreditation. Of more than 31,000 higher education institutions, only 4,532 universities and colleges are accredited.

“India’s university system is in a deep crisis,” said Devesh Kapur, director of the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania, who has written extensively on the subject. “There are so many regulatory barriers to setting up a college or university that it deters honest groups but encourages those who are willing to pay bribes. Millions of young Indians will have high expectations, paper credentials, but will be poorly educated. We can be absolutely sure that it is not going to be pretty.”

A need for more schools

India aims to raise its college enrollment rate to 21 percent in five years, up from 13 percent now. In contrast, the enrollment rate is 23 percent in China and 34 percent in Brazil. Kapur said that to reach its target, India would have to open one new college every working day for the next four years.

With much of the government’s money directed toward combating rural illiteracy by boosting primary school education, the private sector has filled the gap for colleges. Even so, many of India’s colleges and universities — both private and public — face acute shortages of faculty, ill-equipped libraries, outdated curricula and poor infrastructure, according to a report last year by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ernst & Young.

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.

Mar 13 2012

You may not like the message but don’t shoot the messenger (i.e. British Council)!

British Council accused of undermining Government immigration policy

A quango that is meant to promote Britain overseas has been accused of trying to undermine Government policy on immigration.

1 in 7 foreign students enrolled at private colleges don’t attend their courses, it is claimed. Photo: ALAMY
By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor, The Telegraph. (The full article on link)

7:00AM GMT 12 Mar 2012

The British Council claims that new plans to restrict the number of international students at this country’s universities will damage the economy and affect the education sector’s “brand”.

It warns that both Australia and the USA suffered when their governments tightened up entry requirements for undergraduates in recent years.

But a leading pressure group says the British Council, the Government’s international cultural relations body, drew “exactly the wrong lessons” from the other countries’ experiences.

Migration Watch UK says that the studying route is open to abuse and that the authorities are correct to crack down on it.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “It is surprising that a Government-funded body should be issuing material designed to undercut Government policy and even more surprising that they should have tried to spin their report to suggest that tightening our visa system would discourage genuine applicants.

Students from overseas, particularly Asia and Africa, account for a large proportion of new arrivals to Britain and until recently there has been little attempt made to track their movements after graduation.

A major part of the Coalition’s goal of reducing net migration to “tens of thousands” a year, therefore, is to restrict the numbers being handed student visas from a high of some 300,000 a year.

Students on English language courses can now only stay for 11 months while the cost of visas has risen. Under another change made just before the election, applicants must be able to speak English before they can move to a campus here.

From next month, foreign students will not be allowed to remain in the country after graduation unless they have an offer of a skilled job.

A report by the British Council, which has not been widely circulated but which was discussed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in February, warns that the stricter policies will lead to a “downward trend” in international student enrolments.

It says the recent changes mean Britain now has the “toughest immigration regime” which will “detract genuine and career-driven” applicants.

This will reduce the £14billion contribution to the economy made by overseas students and could lead to a shortage of science and engineering skills, it is claimed.

Meanwhile the closure of private colleges will “have a negative impact on the UK education brand as a quality destination”.

Its conclusions are based on the experiences of Australia, which saw lower overseas students after getting tough on bogus applicants, and the USA, which made immigration more difficult following 9/11.

But Migration Watch UK says there the study found no correlation between stricter entry requirements and student applications, and that other factors played important roles in the drop in numbers.

The pressure group says both Australia and the USA found that the student route of immigration is a “very likely source of serious abuse” and points out that both countries interview prospective students, unlike Britain.

It says bogus colleges have been uncovered in this country as well as supposed students who were working full-time, which is more damaging to the reputation of higher education sector.

Dr Jo Beall, the British Council’s director of education and society, said: “The British Council completely backs the government’s intention to attract genuine students who make a huge economic and academic contribution to Britain, so we feel obliged to point out when independent evidence suggests there’s a risk that current policy may mean the UK loses out to our competitors.

“We want to help government combat that and universities to attract the brightest and best students and researchers”.

Mar 12 2012

British PM Cameron defends Post-Study-Work abolition: “imbibe the culture, leave with a love of Britain”

Karan Thapar grilled the British Prime Minister in Devil’s Advocate. The interview was highlighted due to the comments of the PM on Dow’s sponsorship of the Olympics. However there were some very interesting questions posed on education and indian students in UK and I am providing the excerpts of those bits here. The full interview can be found on link at the bottom of this blog.
.
MY COMMENTS BEFORE YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT BELOW: There  is one important flaw in the data presented by Thapar. The total number of students who went to US during last year from India is not 103,000 at all. That is the total number of Indians studying in USA at that time and is a cumulative figure. It is common for journalists to confuse the enrollment numbers with number of students going to a country. The actual number will be less than 50,000. AND if we compare the enrollment figures between the two countries, we need to bear in mind US will always have more enrollments even with the same numbers entering since the Masters in US is for double the duration and Bachelors in US is for 4 years as compared to 3 elsewhere. Hence the total number of students in the system will be higher. The actual difference between US and UK numbers in terms of fresh students during 2011 is only about 10,000 and the total number of fee paying students to UK is actually more than to US. Having made this point, the interview is interesting… Cameron answers the questions like a true politician and even when posed with the high US numbers as compared to UK numbers, he went on and gave his logic… If UK believes that International students want to come to Uk only to “imbibe the culture and then leave with a love for Britain”; they are sadly mistaken. They should be offered Post Study Work option too so that they can couple their education with some invaluable work experience and also earn back some of their investment. NOW THAT YOU HAVE READ MY COMMENTS, GO AHEAD AND ENJOY PRIME MINISTER CAMERON’S REPLIES TO THE SHARP QUESTIONING BY KARAN THAPAR. 
.
Karan Thapar: Prime Minister let’s come to you government’s decision to commit a sharp increase in the University fees this autumn, along with the fact, that now it is going to be more difficult for overseas students to get jobs in the Britain, after they finish their studies. This is going to have an adverse impact on inflow of the Indian students coming to Britain. And in turn it is going to weaken one of the most critical bonds that have tied the two countries together. Does it worry you that you might be loosening the relationship just when you actually wanted to bring two countries closer together?
.
David Cameron:No I don’t think it will have the adverse effect because there are two important facts we need to verify. The first is if you compare the last years with ten years ago, where ten years ago there were some 14000 Indian students coming to the Britain. Last year there some 39000 students, so it’s been a huge increase which we welcome to the Indian students coming to Britain. The second is, absolutely vital. We make it very clear offer to the students from India and all around the world, which if you can speak English and get a place in British University and you can come and have a visa for that place in University and as you graduate you will be able to work for a period in a graduate job. And I think that is incredible simple open and straight forward offer. Now it may be some people who previously travelled to do courses in facilities that aren’t really that highly regarded, in many cases, haven’t been proper educational courses, may be those people can’t come. But it’s actually a very big, open and generous offer to people who can speak English and who have (*) places and who really want to study and make a contribution.
.
Karan Thapar: It is interesting that you should mention that last year, 39000 Indian students came to Britain because at the same time over 103,000 went to the US and that’s the real problem. A student that comes to England doesn’t simply get an education, he or she imbibes your culture and lifestyle, many of them turn to look upon England as a second home… You are losing that whole body of…
.
David Cameron: Ofcourse, if you do the mathematics, America is five times in size, in population, five times the size of Britain and yet according to your figures only taking two thirds of your students.
.
Karan Thapar: It’s two and half times more students.
.
David Cameron: Well ok. We are fifth of the population of America and we are taking a third of the students. The key, I think, is actually not just the board numbers of the students, it’s quite clear to me that in Britain for too many years we have had a lot of bogus colleges, offering rather bogus courses to people who want to come to Britain, who mainly want to come to work than to study. What this government is doing, is making sense of the immigration system that has been a bit confused. We are very clear on the student part, we want those students to come but they should be students that are going to proper colleges to do proper courses and afterwards can work for a period as graduates. I think that is a very big and good offer which will further link Indian students and Britain and as you say not just study at our universities, but imbibe the culture, leave with a love of Britain, ‘I want to do business with Britain’, which is exactly I want.
.
Karan Thapar: But you know it is very interesting you should say that they should leave with a love of Britain. Increasingly because the costs have gone up so phenomenally and remember the new university fees that are going to be almost 300 per cent higher than what they used to be, because of that increasingly, the Indians students are choosing to live in India, perhaps, enrolling in British educational institutions. They may end up getting British degree but their love and affection for the country simply won’t develop.
.
David Cameron:I think you have to ask the question why we are charging the fees for British Universities? And the reason is we want our universities to be continue to be among the best in the world. And if you want great universities and great libraries, research institutes, and tutors. All the things which is in Cambridge, Oxford, London and Bristol on and other universities are still as good as anything is available in America. But if you want that, that costs money, now where is that money going to come from? Is it going to come from the tax payer who already has to fill a big hole with a big deficit and big debt or should we charge the successful graduates for the successful university education they receive. I think the other countries will look at what we are doing in British Universities fees will say actually that is the right way to ensure you have strong and growing universities in a very competitive world.
.
Karan Thapar:Your logic is unimpeachable as far as the financing of the Universities goes but the fact is because you becoming so expensive in England, Indian students are going to America, where you get scholarships. You don’t get the same number of scholarships here and as a result, the logic is on your side but the emotional bond and attachment that got formed for generations, when Indians came to your country, is breaking down.
.
David Cameron:Well we already have good scholarship programmes and I actually announced this week extra scholarships for Indian students as well which I have separately announced and I think there are lot of scholarships available. But the general point I would say to the Indian students watching this programme thinking of where to go to university, I would say ‘come to Britain’ because we have the world’s language and we have some of the best universities any where in the world and we have a scheme to make sure they are gonna go on being the best universities and of course you can go to less expensive universities in other parts of the world but you have to ask yourself, is the degree I am going to get at the end of that going to be as good as from a great British university, that now has a way of funding itself and making sure the quality is as high, as I am sure Indian students would…
.
Karan Thapar: So in a nutshell what you are saying to Indian students is that, even if the costs go up, in some case it even goes up to 300 per cent, British universities remain the best, ‘pay that and come here because the education you get here is better then anywhere’. Is that the message you are giving?
.
David Cameron: I am saying good quality costs money, we are being very upfront about how it should be paid. But if you pay that money, you get very good degree and that will stand you in good stead for rest of your life. And as you said, deepen the relationship between Britain and India.
.
Karan Thapar:You are not worried at all that the economic cost of coming to England might actually over a period of time lessen the bonds that have knitted the countries together?
.
David Cameron:Well I think the worst thing and this is normally what politicians do, is they stick their head in the sand, they don’t realise that universities are getting more expensive, they don’t think of a way of paying for it. They try to expand university education without finding the money for it and suddenly they will wake up one day and universities in France, in Germany and in other places in the world will have overtaken you. I am determined that is not gonna happen. So this government has taken the difficult decision to say we are going to charge students after they have left for the cost of that education. And I think as a result we would be holding our head up high in a few years because our universities will have a very high quality degree.
.
Karan Thapar:And you hope that Indian students will recognise that and come even though it is going to cost them more?
.
David Cameron: I think that Indian students know that quality costs money and they know that there are great universities in Britain and they know Britain is one of the most open and multiracial countries anywhere on earth. You will find people like others who come from every part of India along with the British people who give you a very very warm welcome.
.
Karan Thapar:David Cameron, a pleasure talking to you.
David Cameron:Thank You.
Source: The above is only the relevant extract. The full transcript can be found on the CNN IBN website and on this link.
Mar 11 2012

Private Schooling, Foreign Education and Indian Politics !

The 2012 elections have led media to remind that the battle for Punjab was a battle between Lawrence School, Sanawar and The Doon School and the battle for Uttar Pradesh was between one with foreign education from west (read Rahul Gandhi) versus the other with foreign education from down under (read Akhilesh Yadav).

This is a bit too simplistic and let me iron out the distortions clearly. However there has to be some disclaimers. The first being that private schooling (referred in India ironically as Public schooling) is a done deal for many families and the general preference for “better” schools is completely understandable. In smaller towns with limited number of “better” schools, families “affluent or otherwise” have opted to have their children study at the “residential private schools” such as “Doon, Sanawar, Scindia or Mayo…”. The parents in North have preferred the named while those from South may have opted for Rishi Valley or Lovedale, from west may opt for Daly College and those from East may have headed for Paul’s. In earlier days, there was also a desire amongst parents to look at those whom they admired and hence chose the schooling for their children. Once “harrow educated” Nehru preferred Doon for his grand children, several parents including mine decided to register their children for admit to Doon. Similarly for the other schools. The disclaimer continues that the old-school network too helps in the way that friends help friends.
My understanding is that Amrinder Singh was brought into active politics by Rajiv Gandhi and that both of them were friends at Doon. Now we see their sons (Raninder and Rahul) in politics at the same time. Is this not understandable since friendships matter. Not just within the same political party but also across. Kamal Nath was required to knock on Naveen Patnaik to get support on the Nuclear Vote since both were class mates… Infact there is evidence that those from similar schools tend to bond with each others too as is evident from the reported friendship between Omar Abdullah and Rahul Gandhi.
However, I am of the opinion that apart from the above networking, the residential schools imbibe in boys (and girls) a belief in discipline that goes a long way. “Never Give In” has been the motto for Sanawar and to this date Sanawarians around the world take inspiration from this at the time of adversities. Omar Abdullah mentioned this too at some occasion over last year.
This aspect of a residential school is not just found in “so called” elite schools but also in any form of boarding schooling and possibly even more in Army Schools and Sainik Schools which are so common in the Hindi Heartland. At one time parents from Bihar opted to have their boys attempt entry into “Netarhat” and hence I would club all these schools into the same bracket. One of the better Hindi movies “Hip Hip Hooray” (Prakash Jha directed and featuring Dipti Naval) showed the life at Vikas Vidyalay in Ranchi which resonated so much with the lives of boys at Doon or Sanawar.
“Better” schools also focuses on the “all round” development of children and not just on academics. This includes “public speaking”, “leadership”, “brotherhood” and “independent thinking”. All these are very useful traits in politics.
Now coming to the recent Punjab elections… All three of the main players: Sukhbir Badal, Amrinder Singh and Manpreet Badal have been educated at residential boarding schools. Sukhbir at Sanawar, Manpreet at Doon and Amrinder at Sanawar and then Doon. My understanding is that their children too have studied(of Amrinder), studying (of Manpreet) or will study (of Sukhbir) at boarding schools. I would actually stretch out and say that Punjab is slightly different to other states and this is thanks to the affluence leading to families aspiring solid education for their families. The “show off” attitude too works towards it. Flashing the schooling of the children is no different to flashing an Audi or Merc !
There is really no rivalry between schools as far as the politics of the land of five-rivers is considered and I am reminded of a news item from 2009 that reported the inter-play of the two schools at the time of Lok Sabha elections. The article actually indicates that both the camps have products of both the schools… interesting…
Whosoever said old school ties prove stronger than even those of blood, probably had in mind a scene akin to the one being played out in the fiercest ever poll battle being fought in Bathinda.
In this once non-descript, laidback Malwa town of Punjab, a bunch of ex-Doscos and Sanawarians have gathered in the din and dust of Lok Sabha elections to help out friends and candidates. The candidates are Raninder Singh of Congress and Harsimrat Kaur, or, to be precise, her husband, Sukhbir badal, the president of Shiromani Akali Dal.
Raninder, is a product of Doon School, Dehradun, and Sukhbir of Lawrence School, Sanawar, Himachal Pradesh. Interestingly, there are equal number of ex-Doscos and Sanawarians in both camps. And to top it all, this close-knit group frequent the same clubs in Delhi, meet frequently at parent-teacher meets in Vasant Valley School, and share tips on new farming techniques as all of them own huge farms in Punjab, Haryana or Delhi and live in palatial mansions in the Indian capital.
Raninder’s camp, primarily crowded by fellow Doscos like cousin brothers Randeep and Sarabdeep Mann, Satinder Gill and Jasdeep Nikku, also boasts of a Sanawarian, Amar Jung Sidhu, who is managing his media campaign. On the other hand, a Sanawarian like Sukhbir had made a ex-Dosco, Jaswinder Singh Bull incharge of his wife Harsimrat’s media management. Raninder enjoyed the company of another Sanawarian and a Bhutan royal, Jigme Wangdi Wangchuk, who campaigned with his friend for two days before the heat and dust of polling resulted in a heat stroke, forcing him to leave Bathinda.
Courtesy Sukhbir’s cousin, Manpreet Badal, who is also from Doon School, a number of Doscos like Paramjit Mann and Barjinder Mann who are incidentally related to the Mann cousins in Raninder camp and belong to a politician family from Karnal are hanging out in Sukhbir’s camp. Manpreet too is helping out sister-in-law Harsimrat. Among Sukhbir’s Sanawarian crowd is Jagdeep Nakai, MLA from Joga.

In fact, Raninder was the guardian of Jaswinder Bull in Doon, being one batch senior to him, and taught him how to tie turban, old-timers recall. But, even as these old boys find themselves on the opposite sides of the political camps, back in Delhi, their next generation, ie, the children of both Raninder and Sukhbir, go to the same Vasant Valley school.

The mood is best captured by Bull, who hails from a prominent landed family and is also friends with Raninder’s media campaign incharge, Amar Jung Sidhu, a landowner and progressive farmer from Patiala. “We are here to offer moral support to our friends, but we have no personal stakehere, nor are we slamming each others candidates.”

Moving on to UP now where the mother of all political battles are always fought…
The state gives the maximum number of parliamentarians and has given most of the prime ministers to the country. Hence the media focus has been on two young leaders who were determined to throw the Mayawati led government. One is Rahul Gandhi, a product of Doon School and then educated at Cambridge and Harvard and the other being Akhilesh Yadav, a product of Sainik School and then after doing Engineering in Mysore, having studied Environment Engg in Sydney in Australia.
With this setting, it is not unusual that media and commentators compared the two education routes… One shown up as elite and “away from grass roots” and the other shown up as more grounded. However all referred to both of them as “foreign educated”.
Media summarised (see link) …
It is a disservice to Akhilesh to call him foreign-educated. He has a Sainik school education – still considered in many parts of India as the most disciplined schooling that a young boy can get. He studied at the Sainik School in Dhaulpur, Rajasthan. Akhilesh then did his Bachelor of Engineering and Masters of Engineering in Civil Environment Engineering at the University of Mysore in Karnataka. Only then did he get his “foreign education” – a Masters degree in environmental engineering from the University of Sydney in Australia.
Akhilesh played his card right and only gave interviews in chaste Hindi to be able to reach each and every of his voters when there are reports that not only Hindi and English but he can actually also speak in Kannada. His foreign exposure reflected in his changing of his party’s stance vis-a-vis English and use of Computers while his disciplined schooling reflected in his strong will to instill law and order in the state. Interesting interplay of education as one would say. I would say that donot rule out Rahul. He has been working on 2014 national elections and UP was just a preparation for the same. There are polls that suggest that electorate in India votes for one party in the state and for another party in the centre based on the elections. Hence while Akhilesh’s party is a state party, Rahul is seen a possible Prime Minister from UP in 2014.
There is also another aspect of old-school tie. One is often heard whispering that media creates leaders and highlights certain… Hence the fact that NDTV(Prannoy Roy) and India Today(Aroon Poorie) are run by Doscos while there are other boarding school products that influence other channels : Karan Thapar (Doon) and Vir Sanghvi (Mayo). There are several others too…
Picture abhi baki hai dost!
Feb 24 2012

British Council concerned about UK student visa changes

Concerned over Post Study Work Visa being phased out, The British Council has voiced concerns over the UK’s current visa rules and says that current government policies could be damaging to the country.

According to Dr Jo Beall, director of education and society at the British Council, is particularly concerned about the Post Study Work Visa which gave overseas students the right to stay in the UK and seek employment after completing university courses, being phased out.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, she expressed her worries over such changes.

‘We know from our own research that the right to work for a short period after study is something that influences students’ choices and decision making. We’re concerned that the UK, in a very competitive higher education landscape, doesn’t lose out,’ she explained.

She also believes that the current tightening of visa rules would not be of significant benefit to UK nationals.

‘The worst case scenario is that these short term gains of a few more young people flipping hamburgers and pulling pints who are British come at the cost of the strength of our industrial innovation, our research and development base, our reputation as a higher education provider, which is second in the world at the moment,’ she explained.

The British Council have sent a report to the government, detailing the US and Australian experience with student visa restrictions. In both countries, visa rules were subsequently relaxed after drops in international student numbers.

Universities Australia estimated that student visa tightening cost Australia A$428 million (£292 million) in 2010, the British Council report says.

While recognising the need to prevent bogus students entering the UK, Beall claimed that the government had failed to grasp how interconnected and interlinked the tertiary education sector is.

This post is sourced from http://www.expatforum.com/britain/british-council-concerned-about-uk-student-visa-changes.html

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! 

Feb 18 2012

“Optionless” OZ Universities give-in; to become visa officers!!!

UNIVERSITIES will put their reputations on the line by signing up to the streamlined visa processing system. The government will monitor the system and publicise any warnings issued or loss of eligibility status.

The Australian’s Higher Education Supplement informed the above through its article on this link

Will they or Will they not has been the question hanging in the air for some weeks now, not just for observers but also for the employed in these Universities.

Is this what they have been set up for? Is it to vet the documents (financials) and check for genuinity and then issue a letter that can lead to fast-tracked and streamlined visa processing. Maybe this is the modern definition of the job of a University…

The dictionary gives the role of a University as:

university |ˌyo͞onəˈvərsətē|

noun ( pl. universities )

an educational institution designed for instruction, examination, or both, of students in many branches of advanced learning, conferring degrees in various faculties, and often embodying colleges and similar institutions: [ in names ] : Oxford University | the University of California | [ as modifier ] : the university buildings | a university professor.

Recently I met with several institutions and wanted to only know as to how they intend to handle this role. The very few who seemed to know or wanted to be seen as one seemingly knowing, mentioned that they will work with their agents to find a way to deliver the requirements. Wow… Finally, the immigration is indirectly telling Universities that there are some good agents and that some agents do good work and that good Universities need to work with these good agents.

I am already gearing up to be able to do my part but the lurking fear is that if I or any of the other agents miss-out knowingly or unknowingly… The Universities will risk moving to a lower Assessment Level. Not fair to the University at all!

Another very interesting prospect: If a lower perceived institution with limited clout is moved down the assessment leval, it will be seen as right but “What if a Group Of Eight institution is moved to AL3?” Firstly, I do not believe that the Immigration will ever take such a step and if it does, they should be prepared for the full streamlining to be reviewed… Some Universities are indeed “Holy Cows” around the world! The other not-so Universities are already dancing to prove their caste by canceling “unconditional offer letters” based on “so called interviews after the student has made payment of fees”, aimed only at demonstrating that they should remain included in all DIAC plans. (I actually wonder if those Universities know the meaning of “unconditional” when they issue the offers of place. Will do a separate blog to show how such institutions are in the wrong already and will encourage the affected students to approach consumer protection bodies and ESOS provisions.). Now back to “streamlining”…

Another question: The customer for the visa office is the student who pays a set application fee. Why should he get a different treatment based on the compliance rate of the University he chooses? Should he not get the treatment based on his or her credentials alone when the visa fee and the process is meant to be the same.

Yes, I may not know all the facts and I may not know what is happening but what I know is the article from The Australian that I quoted above and from which I quote now…

It is understood some universities initially baulked at the increased obligations, but with rival universities keen to sign up to exploit the marketing boost they will get, most are expected to eventually join the system.

And

The Immigration Department will rate each participating university’s risk, based on the performance of its prospective and actual students against their visa obligations. The more students in breach of their visas, or with visas cancelled or refused, the higher a university’s risk weighting will be.

Large numbers of students subsequently applying for residency after their studies will also increase the risk level.

There will be five assessment levels, but to be eligible for streamlined processing, universities must maintain at least an AL1 or AL2 rating, and those down to AL3 will have six months to improve before being thrown out.

I am fine with the fact that roles of institutions can change but can only imagine DIAC laughing with the fact that Universities have given in. Now the Immigration can collect the hefty visa application fee and at the same time get the Universities to do all the job that they were not originally set up for AND which most believe, they will just not manage to undertake.