campusreview . com . au international education
The Belt and Ranking Road
Has the focus on rankings really improved international student intake ?
By Jim Mienczakowski and Greg Whateley
Improving international ranking status has , during the last two decades , become the justification for numerous disruptive ‘ strategic ’ business and marketing behaviours across our tertiary sector .
To add to those 17,300 jobs ‘ shed ’ due to COVID-19 there are thousands of other professional and academic positions which have been lost during the constant sector churn aimed at re-tooling universities to be research facing and to score better in international rankings .
Most typically , the cost of institutions seeking to climb the rankings has entailed significant ‘ organisational change ’, investment in medical schools and buyingin ‘ star academic talent ’ to aid in replicating the organisational research and leadership profiles of those institutions already in the top 100 . The long-term value of this form of organisational mimicry is not completely clear – other than it has not created stellar or sustainable rankings progress for most institutions involved . It may have even contributed significantly to the impoverishment of undergraduate learning experiences ( QILT , 2020 ).
By default , the establishing of a national ranking hierarchy for marketing purposes has also undermined confidence in ( and the perceived value of ) qualifications and education obtained through some of our lower-ranked institutions . This is irrespective of the fact that much of the international ranking prowess gained by leading universities is actually based upon research achievements which have little relationship with , or impact upon , the real undergraduate educational experiences of the majority of students they serve . Rankings can be a distorting lens in respect to deciphering institutional marketing .
THE VALUE AND EMBRACING OF RANKINGS
Whilst it is often claimed that high rankings are essential for attracting the fee-paying international students bringing bounteous wealth to our universities and funding the research essential for ranking purposes , the correlation between international student numbers and their symbiotic relationship with migration to Australia is , almost habitually , an unspoken dynamic . The attraction of Australia , as a prosperous , desirable and safe country to live and invest in , cannot be underestimated in the decision-making processes of our ( once ) considerable international student cohorts . All up , there is a lot more to ranking behaviours than the ebb and flow of international students seeking places in top ranked universities . For example , the independent private providers in the sector also serve an extensive swathe of inbound cash paying international students – and the independents are generally unranked and non-research focused .
The Belt and Ranking Road adopted by many universities consistently relies upon attracting students ( largely ) from China and since COVID-19 many institutions , quite understandably , are now clamouring for a return of their international student revenue pathways . The most impacted institutions , however , are less forthcoming in respect to identifying alternative futures not entailing the rankings race or an unstainable reliance upon foreign student income . The once lucrative Belt and Ranking Road is , as has been long feared , a dangerous one to exclusively rely upon .
There are , of course , other international markets to be developed . Students from India may eventually return in numbers – as statistically they have consistently demonstrated strong interest in migrating and working in Australia as well as in studying here . Brazil and South America are relatively untapped capacities – as are Indonesia , Vietnam , Cambodia , Laos and
Thailand . However , the biggest challenge for ‘ high ranking claimants ’ will be in attracting students who not only meet the required academic entry standards , but those who also have the linguistic skills necessary for competent learning . There is also a matter of students being willing and able to pay the high international fee levels required here .
RECENT QILT FINDINGS The QILT 2020 findings strongly suggest that some of the nation ’ s private providers have outperformed the highest nationally ranked sector leaders in terms of student satisfaction with quality , experience and engagement .
In the 2020 QILT survey the top 25 institutions for Student Support are all independent providers , as are the top 24 for Teaching Quality . This is an important realisation . Whilst a rankings and metricsdriven focus may have been seen as essential for attracting international student interest , the reality of the actual student learning experiences appears to have not been given the same depth of consideration . Conversely , the sector ’ s ( non-research focused ) independent private providers have ploughed money and expertise into providing cutting edge online and face-toface learning experiences for their students as well as pertinent training for their staff .
Of course , private providers are the smaller segment in the overall marketplace , and some may question the scale of their contributing student numbers in QILT – but why haven ’ t the huge corporate style public universities actually done better for their student / client base ?
COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE As a more cost-effective steppingstone , some international students might be wiser to contemplate successfully completing at least their undergraduate studies with a reputable , accredited independent provider . Non-research aligned private providers may have a capacity-building role to play in assisting students from less wealthy , emerging markets , gain entry to all that Australia higher education and life has to offer . ■
Emeritus Professor Jim Mienczakowski is a higher education consultant .
Emeritus Professor Greg Whateley is deputy vice chancellor at Group Colleges Australia .
9