international education
campusreview.com.au
it becomes all too easy for them to retreat into themselves without
anyone noticing or simply asking, ‘Are you okay?’
While today’s international students may seem more connected
via social media, there is a big difference between online ‘friends’
and meaningful social support. In some cases, it is not part of the
student’s culture to reach out to others for support, let alone to seek
professional help.
Whose responsibility is it to ensure adequate support services
are not only in place but also communicated to students?
There are, of course, some wonderful examples of both
education provider and government-auspiced support services
for international students who feel at risk. The Study Melbourne
Student Centre, located adjacent to Melbourne’s major train
station, is staffed by professional counsellors who can provide
access to a full range of support mechanisms and services.
StudyNSW funds free legal advice through the Redfern Legal
Centre. Study Gold Coast has a student-friendly drop-in centre.
Many of our universities also have very effective “buddy” programs
between their domestic and international students.
Unfortunately, despite some wonderful separate initiatives,
the fact remains that the sector has no comprehensive oversight
of which programs are working and which ones might be
worthwhile rolling out on a national basis. It is, therefore, high time
that we consult with the international student body about their
needs, conduct a stocktake of programs that are meeting their
expectations, and then lobby both government and providers to
sufficiently resource this crucial area.
It is up to those of us who work in international education to
ask the serious questions as to whose responsibility it is to ensure
better integration of international students into their host country’s
culture and way of life. ■
Phil Honeywood is chief executive officer of the International
Education Association of Australia (IEAA).
Keep calm and sell
England forges ahead with uni commercialisation.
A
mid the global, pre-Royal Wedding fervour, the UK
government made significant higher education reforms.
First, on 1 January this year, it founded the Office for
Students (OfS), a new university watchdog. Then, in mid-February,
it announced the “biggest shake-up to higher education in 25
years”, as new universities minister Sam Gyimah put it.
Announced by Prime Minister Theresa May, the year-long
review led by ex-banker Philip Augar, is aimed at “driving up quality,
increasing choice and ensuring value for money”.
In addition to other measures, it also encompasses a review
of processes to increase access and participation.
Behind the PR-speak, however, some say it is simply a justification
for the continuing marketisation of UK universities, as it makes no
reference to fee relief.
Bodies like MillionPlus, a group of post-1992 universities, argue that
these measures are intended to justify possible course fee hikes.
Despite the fact that in 2017, just 32 per cent of undergraduates
from England considered their course value for money, down from
50 per cent in 2012, student loan repayment thresholds have been
lowered. Concordantly, fee caps tripled from 2012, to a maximum
of £9250 ($16,300) per year for an undergraduate degree. One
analysis even found that England’s university fees are, on average,
the highest in the word.
Added to this, students are charged interest of up to 6.1 per cent
on study loans, and, in 2015, student maintenance grants – monies
that helped the poorest students with living costs – were abolished.
Further still, a 2016 Intergenerational Foundation report found
that, for most professions in the UK, student debt outweighs
salary benefits. ■
9