tuesday, may 30, 2017 results from nafsa’s research on ... · results from nafsa’s research on...
TRANSCRIPT
Results from NAFSA’s Research on Pathway Programs in the United States
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Presenters
Rahul Choudaha
Principal Researcher & Co-Founder
DrEducation, LLC
Mark Hoffman
Vice Provost for International
Programs
Oregon State University
Heather Housley
Director
International Student &
Scholar Services
Georgia State University
Joann
Ng Hartmann
Senior Director
IEM-ISSS
NAFSA
2
Background on research
project
Institutional profiles
Highlights of research
findings
Interactive Discussion
3
Agenda
Background
Regulatory implications
Limited information
Diverse institutions/pro
gramsHigh Stakes
5
The Why?
6
Final Report Available for Download
http://www.nafsa.org/Shop/detail.aspx?id=160E
Institutional Profiles
8
Georgia State University
• Total Enrollment (fall 2016):
• Undergraduate: 43,963
• 18,802 more than 2015 due to consolidation
• Graduate: 7,009
• International enrollment: 3076/6%
• Top 5 countries: India, China, South Korea, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia
• Downtown Atlanta – Great accessibility to internships, immigrant communities
• Very little use of agents, and minimal recruitment travel
• University IEP and ESL programs
o Total enrollment (Fall 2016): 30,354▪ Undergraduate: 25,327▪ Graduate: 5,027 (includes professional students)
o International enrollment: 3,529/13.1%▪ Top five countries:
• China, Peoples Republic of (1,496)• Saudi Arabia (302)• India (188)• Indonesia (185)• South Korea (141)
o Corvallis, Oregono INTO North America partnershipo Active recruitment through travel and use of agents. INTO network.
9
Oregon State University
Research
Working Definition & Landscape
11
21 Private
24 Public
45 institutions partnering with
8 third-party providers
(April s1, 2016)
“Pathway providers are private third-party entities partnering with institutions to recruit international students and offer English-language preparation with academic coursework applicable toward graduation requirements”
12
Landscape
No. of International
Students per
Institution
All Institutions in the United States Institutions Partnering with Third-
Party Pathway Providers*
No. of Institutions International
Enrollment
No. of Institutions Total International
Enrollment
Greater than 3,000 75 419,376 5 25,341
1,001–3,000 170 295,343 12 22,357
501–1,000 129 91,386 10 6,939
200–500 232 72,450 5 1,220
Less than 200 879 61,355 7 703
Total 1,485 939,910 39 56,560
Source: Data from IIE Open Doors 2015. * International enrollment data were unavailable for six institutions.
Invitation
• 2359 international educators
• IEL, IEM, ISSS
Data Collection
• July 12 – August 2, 2016
• Confidential
Responses
• 347 valid, completed
• 281 institutions
• Response rate of 14.7%
13
Survey
Institutional Type % of Total
International
Enrollment in
the US
No. of
Respondents
% of
Respondents
Doctorate-Granting Universities 66% 220 63%
Master’s Colleges and Universities 17% 61 18%
Baccalaureate Colleges 4% 29 8%
Other 13% 37 11%
Total 100% 347 100%
14
Sample Representativeness
Current Status
No, not considering &
not in partnership
(64%)
Considering partnering but not in current partnership
(13%)
Yes, currently in partnership
(18%)
Other (5%)
15
Current Status of Third-Party Partnership
Reasons for Partnering
To access recruitment network of
pathway provider
(59%)
To expand enrollment of international students at bachelor's level (57%)
To improve yield of
international enrollment
(57%)
To make up for lack of
in-house expertise
(44%)
To enhance diversity of
international enrollment
(32%)
16
Yes, we currently partnerNo, we are considering
partnering
No, we are not
considering partnering
To access recruitment network of pathway provider 66% 72% 53%
To expand enrollment of international students at bachelor’s level 63% 61% 55%
To improve yield of international enrollment 65% 63% 54%
To make up for lack of in-house expertise 32% 35% 49%
To enhance diversity of international enrollment 45% 39% 26%
To avoid investing in international enrollment infrastructure 16% 39% 33%
To save money/reduce existing costs 24% 46% 26%
To overcome location disadvantage 11% 26% 24%
To expand enrollment of international students at master’s level 31% 13% 16%
To access capital for starting recruitment 13% 15% 13%
To overcome restrictions of using agents 10% 24% 10%
To leverage approaches of private sector 11% 13% 8%
To restructure existing operations 6% 4% 8%
Other - Please specify 8% 0% 7%17
Reasons for partnering by current status
Reasons for Not Partnering
Fear of loss of academic standards
(65%)
Concern for loss of
control of international admissions
process (56%)
University-governed Intensive English
Program is working well
(51%)
Terms of contract (i.e. length and cost) (44%)
Prefer to develop
in-house expertise
(35%)
18
Yes, we currently partner No, we are considering
partnering
No, we are not
considering partnering
Fear of loss of academic standards 74% 65% 61%
Concern for loss of control of international admissions process 58% 65% 53%
University-governed intensive English program is working well 37% 41% 59%
Terms of contract (i.e., length and cost) 45% 65% 39%
Prefer to develop in-house expertise 26% 17% 41%
Resistance from staff/faculty 45% 39% 23%
Insufficient information on pathway providers 24% 33% 29%
Unknown impact on student enrollment and integration 32% 26% 23%
Resistance within senior management 16% 24% 17%
No need to expand international enrollment 10% 9% 19%
Limited institutional capacity to absorb enrollment growth 15% 15% 11%
Constraints of state requirements 8% 15% 10%
Other - Please specify 10% 2% 9%19
Reasons for not partnering by current status
o First effort in the U.S. to get a balanced and a data-driven perspective on
the scope and viewpoints of international educators on third-party pathway
partnerships
o While the third-party pathway model has been in existence in the U.S. for
nearly a decade, and given the number of international students enrolled in
U.S. higher education, the number of third-party pathway partnerships
remain relatively small
o At this time, no consistent and comparable data is available to know how
many total students enrolled in third-party pathway programs and it’s
impact on campuses
o Irrespective of how the institution plans to achieve its future enrollment
goals, it is important to weigh the range of reasons and
considerations in the decisionmaking processes20
Key Take-aways
Interactive Discussion
Engaged in third-party
pathway partnership
Explored but decided not to enter into partnership
Still undecided
Not even looking
22
Audience Poll
What are your strategic priorities for international enrollment?
Is diversifying your international student population part of your enrollment goals? If so, what strategies are you using to achieve this goal?
Are you concerned about potential declines in international student enrollment? What strategies are you using or exploring to mitigate this?
What are the campus climate issues to watch for?
23
Questions for discussion
nafsa.org/pathwayprograms/
Rahul Choudaha ([email protected])
Mark Hoffman ([email protected])
Heather Housley ([email protected])
Joann Ng Hartmann ([email protected])
24