Last year, colleague Rachael Merola and I reported in the ICEF Monitor (19/3/2019) high-level results of analysis of i-graduate’s International Student Barometer (ISB) data showing which elements of students’ international study experience contribute most to their overall happiness. The top five elements that appeared most frequently in correlations with international student happiness were “making good contacts for the future”, “learning that will help me to get a good job”, “the organisation and smooth running of the course”, “the social facilities”, and “the design and quality of the campus buildings”.

What could these results mean now for universities trying to support international students during a global pandemic crisis? Whilst universities initially and now some state and territory governments have come out strongly in support of Australia’s international students with emergency funding and support services, messages from the federal government have been anything but supportive. Regrettable utterances from the highest levels of the federal government regarding Australia’s fourth largest export industry contrast starkly with responses by the Canadian, NZ and UK governments, which have recognized both past and future benefits of thriving international education programs in those countries. i-graduate and UK universities will in coming weeks survey international students about their COVID-19 study experience to understand in even more detail what is working and what can be improved in this strange new online remote world. Meanwhile in the Land of Oz, federal government indifference to the plight of international students coupled with now almost daily reports of COVID-19 linked racist attacks in Australia means happiness must be a distant memory for those who have lost their part-time jobs, are unable to receive financial support from parents under lockdown in their home country, are cut off from campuses and contact with fellow students and are struggling to remain engaged in studies rapidly converted from face-to-face mode to online, with varying levels of success.

In our 2019 article we made the point that universities could use their ISB data to better target support for international students and improve satisfaction with their overall experience. This remains true in the current context. Universities have not only moved studies online – every form of service from student support, Chaplaincy, sporting clubs (now e-sports) and counselling has been or is now being shifted to online provision. What was clear from our research was that the feelings of connection students have with other students, with institutional staff and with other groups such as employers and alumni, contribute strongly to happiness and student well-being. How can these connections be maintained in the current climate? Institutions should not lose sight of the impact and importance of these non-academic elements of their students’ experience, even whilst trying to ensure that fundamental academic and support programs are delivered online to equivalent service levels as were the norm pre-COVID 19. Facilitating social and career-related connections among students is challenging enough in a campus environment – even more so with social distancing and lockdown orders in place. They are however no less important now as before to the outcomes international students are looking for – employability and related returns on the considerable investment of years studying overseas.

In 2019 i-graduate added new questions to the ISB exploring student anxiety and stress. Globally, 33% of international students said they were somewhat or very concerned about being able to complete their studies; 31% indicated they were quite often or always stressed. Imagine what the results would be like from a survey of this year’s cohort. Domestic students globally were even more concerned about stress (41%) and completing their studies (40%).

The point is that institutions need to not only make sure that the temporary online study experience is as positive as it can be, or that support services continue to be delivered effectively. They also need to ensure that their students get the outcomes they came here for in the first place, regardless of the current circumstances – including good contacts for their future and employability. This is a monumental task, and all the more reason for the federal government to step in and support institutions hosting international students with the types of emergency funding packages that universities and territory and state governments have developed. As it stands, Australia’s COVID-19 generation of international students will probably return home grateful for the help their institutions gave them, and the for the help they received from some city, state and territory governments around the country. But they are also in danger of remembering two words from our national government that will have the greatest impact on their impressions of Australia – ‘go home’.

​And that won’t make anyone happy.

​In the wake of the Australian drought and bushfires, and the establishment by Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan of the Global Reputation Taskforce it is timely to consider what environmental issues mean to international students.
 
The number of globally mobile students grows each year (more than 5 million in higher education alone) and emissions associated with this mobility are estimated in a recent study at 14-39 megatons per year, a significant proportion of which is caused by air travel. Already some European universities are seeking to channel their students towards study abroad destinations they can reach by train rather than plane.
 
We know that many young people are deeply concerned about climate change and want to see action. Can we identify what these trends are likely to mean for the international education sector?
 
Key questions include whether or not environmental issues are a factor in attracting students to an institution or destination in the first place, and whether or not they contribute to student satisfaction or their propensity to recommend their institution or study destination to others. Will students start voting with their feet based on a destination’s climate credentials or concern about climate-related natural disasters?
 
A fuller picture is starting to emerge. QS conducted the Environmental Concerns Survey in August 2019, with responses from more than 3,700 prospective international students interested in studies in the UK, Australia, Canada, or USA. The majority of respondents considered universities to be either very environmentally friendly (33%) or somewhat environmentally friendly (49%). 36% strongly agreed that universities care about the environment, 35% slightly agreed. An overwhelming majority (94%) agreed that universities could do more to be environmentally sustainable, but overall the survey demonstrated that students value universities taking sustainability steps on both a global and local level.
 
i-graduate’s International Student Barometer (ISB) survey has included a question on universities’ “eco-friendliness” for many years. Results from the Australian 2018 ISB showed that 91.7% of international students were either ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their institutions’ “eco-friendly attitude to the environment”. Domestic students, on the other hand, were slightly less enthusiastic, with 84% agreeing with their international counterparts. i-graduate also examined the link between satisfaction levels and students’ propensity to recommend their institution to others. The most impactful element of students’ living experience is their ability to make good contacts for their future (35% positive correlation). Institutions’ eco-friendly attitude to the environment has less impact on students’ propensity to recommend their institution (26% positive correlation), but has a positive impact nevertheless. The ISB in 2020 will add “eco-friendly reputation of the institution” to the decision-making section of the survey to try to understand whether environmental issues influence students during that critical stage of their education journey.
 
The ISB is conducted all over the world, allowing comparisons between students in different countries and regions. International students in Canada and Australia, for example, were most satisfied with their institutions’ “eco-friendly attitude to the environment” (92.5% and 91.7% respectively). “Eco-friendly attitude” was most impactful among international students in Canada – a 33% positive correlation with their propensity to recommend their institution to others. As the table below shows, for an institution’s eco-friendly attitude to the environment, Canada had both the highest satisfaction scores among the countries and regions analysed and the strongest relationship between satisfaction levels and propensity to recommend the institution to others.

​The UK’s National Union of Students survey has shown that 80% of students expect universities to act on sustainability. Closer to home, the University of Tasmania found in a survey of 3,700 students that 86% expect carbon neutral certification and 80% support fossil fuel divestment.
 
The recent launch of the Times Higher Education Impact Ranking offers prospective students the chance to compare institutions on their performance against the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including climate action. This ranking is very new, but in its first year many of the top spots were held by Canadian institutions, in line with the ISB findings.
 
It may be that international students are beginning to take more stock of environmental issues when choosing universities for overseas studies and in their recommendations to friends and peers. IDP’s Student Buyer Behaviour survey, which measures changes in perceptions of popular study destinations, may include questions around sustainability and climate action in the next round. Results from these surveys will help us understand more about how these issues impact international student decision-making and study experience.
 
The extent to which countries and their governments’ attitudes to environmental issues impact student choice is another issue all together. Will international students start to call out governments that are not seen to be pulling their weight on climate change? Australia could be the test case that the rest of the world is watching. 

FULL PRESS RELEASE: AUIDF 2018 Learning Abroad results

Each year the Australian Universities International Directors’ Forum (AUIDF) measures participation in outbound learning mobility by university students. The study, undertaken for AUIDF by i-graduate, has been conducted annually since 2005, and is the only source of information that provides universities with key data to help quantify the learning abroad experiences of students at Australian universities. AUIDF has released national data for 2018.
 
Learning mobility is the incorporation of international study experiences in a student’s academic program. For the latest study, 34 universities reported on learning mobility for 2018, the most recent data available.
 
52,171 experiences were reported by Australian universities across all levels of study in 2018, up from 49,263 in 2017. The top five destinations were China, USA, UK, Italy and Japan, the same top five as in 2017.
 
36,575 of those 52,171 experiences were for undergraduate students. Learning mobility is very much an undergraduate phenomenon. 8,218 postgraduate coursework students and 7,378 postgraduate research students also participated in an international learning experience in 2018. Faculty-led study tours were the most popular type of international experience across all study levels.
 
In total, 29,535 undergraduate domestic students undertook an international study experience, representing 24% of the 2018 graduating cohort at participating universities. In other words, almost one in four Australian undergraduate university students participates in an international study experience, up from 16.5% in 2014, 19.3% in 2015, 20.9% in 2016 and 22.4% in 2017. This essentially answers the question: “what proportion of a graduating cohort had an international study experience at some stage in their Bachelor degree program.” It is a question that is of interest to anyone concerned with graduate outcomes and the development of graduate attributes, including employers.
 
Of particular interest to the Federal Government, which recognises the importance of developing closer ties with foreign countries, are international study experiences in countries in our region, many of which are funded by programs such as the New Colombo Plan (NCP). In 2018, 49% of undergraduate domestic learning mobility experiences were undertaken in Indo-Pacific countries. In other words, almost half of the 29,535 domestic undergraduate students who undertook an international study experience in 2018 did so in countries in our region, a significant international diplomacy effort that should reap benefits in terms of trade and foreign relations for decades to come. The most popular destinations were China, India, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam. 14,481 experiences in Indo-Pacific countries in 2018 was up from 13,499 in 2017 and 12,438 in 2016.

As the number of international students enrolled in higher education worldwide has skyrocketed in the past two decades, increasing from two million in 1999 to around five million at present, understanding what impacts their experience on campus is key to promoting student wellbeing and attracting international students. Responses to the 2018 International Student Barometer (ISB) survey at universities in Australia - one of the top host countries for international students - shed light on what aspects of the learning and living experience matter most in determining respondents’ happiness with their life as an international student.

In 2018, 56,376 international students studying at 35 universities in Australia took part in the ISB, a survey tracking the motivations, decision-making, and well-being of international students during their studies. Students from over 100 countries responded to the survey, with responses from the top ten nationalities used as the basis for analysis of factors that contribute most to student happiness. Survey respondents were asked: “Overall, how happy are you with your life at the university at this stage in the year?” with response options “very unhappy,” “unhappy,” “happy,” and “very happy.” Correlation analysis was undertaken to determine the strength of the relationship between responses to this question and satisfaction scores for all elements of the overseas study experience.

In 2018, the top five elements that most frequently appeared in the highest correlations with international student happiness were “making good contacts for the future” (Good contacts), “learning that will help me to get a good job” (Employability), “the organisation and smooth running of the course” (Course organisation), “the social facilities” (Social facilities), and “the design and quality of the campus buildings” (Campus buildings).  

Students who had high satisfaction with these aspects of their experience were likely to also report a high level of happiness with their overall study experience. The converse is also true - those with low satisfaction in these areas were more likely to report lower happiness with their study experience.

The top three most influential elements highlight the importance of employability skills, future job prospects, and the learning experience; while the final two reveal that the campus environment and students’ surroundings do impact their happiness. Though institutions searching for a recipe for international student happiness may be tempted to beef up career-related services, expand networking opportunities, and beautify the campus, digging deeper into the data reveals that happiness is impacted by different elements depending on student characteristics, including nationality.

For example, for undergraduate students from China, who comprised 5409 of the ISB respondents in this study, and represent Australia’s leading sending market, the top three elements impacting happiness were “making good contacts for the future,” “immigration and visa advice from the institution,” and “campus eating places.” Qualitative comments from students in the survey shed light on why they are concerned with campus eating options: many seek food that is affordable and healthy; and some lament the lack of food from their home countries or lack of options for students with dietary requirements (for example, vegetarian or Halal cuisine).

Responses from students from India, the second-largest undergraduate sample in the Australian ISB (1,215 respondents) and second largest source of Australian universities’ international enrolments, reveal another area with a high impact on happiness - “the subject area expertise of lecturers/supervisors” bears 40% correlation with the happiness of students from India.
​
For other nationalities, different aspects of their overseas study experience are influential: for example, for Nepalese students, the “quality of lectures” was strongly linked to happiness; while for Vietnamese students “the surroundings outside the institution” were more important. For Pakistani students, the “opportunity to work while studying” played a key role in determining happiness.

Source: i-graduate, Australian University ISB 2018
 
Data support the notion that international students’ happiness with their studies is influenced by characteristics such as nationality, gender, and stage of study. International students’ subjective satisfaction with their experience is determined by myriad interconnected factors - it would be a mistake to assume that student support should target nationalities without taking into consideration the context and characteristics of individual students.  Nevertheless, identifying the top elements related to the happiness of international students allows institutions to better serve their needs and help them achieve both professional and personal development goals.

Though there are apparent differences by nationality, international recruiters would be wise to dig deeper and consider what other variables may be mediating the link between nationality and student happiness. While the factors identified by the ISB play a role in student happiness, the correlation is not 100%, meaning that there are other factors at play.
​
As the number of students pursuing higher education outside their home country is now at an all-time high, understanding what factors exert most influence on their overseas educational experience is top of mind for the educators, administrators, and agents who work with them.  An awareness that the needs of students are influenced by their backgrounds, courses of study, and future plans has ignited interest in measuring student well-being and happiness to offer tailored support.

Conducted annually since 2005, the i-graduate International Student Barometer (ISB) survey has collected feedback from three million students worldwide across all student types, levels and years of study. In 2017, over 110,000 students globally responded to the survey, providing information about how they decided to study at their institution, their application and arrival experiences, support services, and their experience of living and learning overseas.

Students taking the ISB survey are asked about the factors they considered when making their decision to study overseas, from personal safety and cost of study to institution reputation and earning potential of the degree. Results can be compared globally and across multiple study destinations such as the US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands.
​
The following table highlights that, when compared with the global benchmark, four decision-making elements stand out for a number of leading destinations.

Areas most commonly cited by 2017 ISB respondents as helpful to their decision making process. Source: i-graduate

Among the 7,500 international student respondents studying in the US, 84% indicated an institution scholarship was an important element in the process to decide where to study overseas, compared to 74% of international students globally. Respondents studying in the US appear more price sensitive (or at least more concerned about affordability) than those studying in other top destination countries – for example, 52% in the Netherlands, 77% in the UK, and 78% in New Zealand.

Institutions employing scholarship strategies to attract international students therefore need to ensure that prospective students can easily access relevant information about scholarship opportunities, for example by making the information prominent and easily accessible on institution websites. This is less important for Chinese students (80%) than Indian (90%), South Korean (88%) or Taiwanese (95%), so ensuring that information is used strategically is also important, such as via campaigns targeting students in particular countries.

Postgraduate students are asked about teacher reputation, with a much higher proportion of international students in the US reporting this as a significant factor than those studying in other countries. Hero profiles of teaching staff and research supervisors are therefore likely to be influential during the decision-making phase and should be prominent in promotional activity.

It is also notable that a high percentage of respondents studying in the US reported being influenced by the opportunity to work while studying, as well as opportunities for further study – 76% and 84%, respectively. However, this may be a common theme across some other popular destination countries for international students. In Canada, for example, 81% of international student respondents and 85% in Australia were influenced by opportunities to work while studying, indicating that a country’s national policies can often play an important role in study destination choice.
​
In addition to decision-making factors, ISB survey respondents are also asked about what influenced their choice of study destination – with factors ranging from alumni, friends, and family to staff of the institution and social networking sites. Again, results for international students in the US can be compared with results from international students studying in other countries. Four influencing factors stand out, two which work well for the US and two which lag performance in other countries.

Major influencers of student choice reported by 2017 ISB respondents. Source: i-graduate

For international students in the US, rankings are a critical factor in their choice of study destination, and particularly so for students from eight key source countries. Respondents from India, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and Canada indicated that rankings were the number one factor that helped them choose their study destination. In total, 41% of respondents studying in the US reported being influenced by rankings – compare this, for example, to 33% studying in Canada, 25% in the Netherlands, 17% in Australia or 11% in the UK.

The focus on rankings is good news for institutions large enough or well-resourced enough to jostle for position among the various international ranking systems. If a university has a ranking it can boast about, it needs to be prominent in the marketing mix. Many colleges, however, do not have the benefit of an internationally recognised ranking, due to factors such as their size, mission, or niche focus. They will have to think of innovative ways to cover this gap in messaging to prospective students.
Word of mouth is also an important factor helping students decide where to study – 21% in the US versus 14% in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand and 17% globally. Knowing that current students can play such an important role as brand ambassadors highlights the significance of ensuring that they are highly satisfied with their experience.

Compared to the global benchmark and many other countries, international students in the US are not as influenced by recruitment agents and institutional websites. Only 25% of respondents studying in the US reported using agents, as opposed to 56% in Australia, 36% in the UK, and 30% globally. This likely reflects the relatively lower levels of engagement with agents on the part of US institutions. However, in a global and highly competitive market this represents a missed opportunity for US-based recruiters, which should consider ways to activate the agent channel.

​Agents were the most important factor that helped Chinese respondents to the ISB decide where to study (39%), whereas only 27% of Chinese respondents listed institutional website as a factor, below the US (34%) and global (40%) averages. 90% of Chinese students in the US were satisfied or very satisfied with the services provided by their student recruitment agents, so they are a trusted and important channel that needs to be proactively managed. Similarly, management of website positioning, functionality, and content are critical to ensure this important channel optimises conversion opportunities for any prospective student visitor to a college’s site.

Following is the text of a press release issued 3/2/2017

i-graduate, part of the Tribal Group, has appointed international education specialist Stephen Connelly as the new director of its Australian operations.

In 2016 Stephen received the IEAA Excellence Award for Distinguished Contribution to International Education (www.ieaa.org.au/what-we-do/award-winners-2016) as recognition of his work over 25 years in the education sector in Australia and around the region.  Over the past four years Stephen has run a highly successful consulting firm, GlobalEd Services, specialising in international education. The role with i-graduate will enable clients of both organisations to access a broad suite of services and products, from benchmarking and surveying to specialist international education advice and assistance.

Stephen Connelly, Director, GlobalEd Services Australia:
Over the past 10 years i-graduate has become an integral part of the education sector in Australia, including, importantly, Australia’s $19b international education industry. The opportunity to combine the international education expertise and focus of GlobalEd Services with i-graduate’s suite of products and services is exciting, and I look forward to continuing to further growing and providing added value to our clients and to i-graduate’s partnerships in Australia.

Nick Stanley, Managing Director, Tribal Group (Asia Pacific):
i-graduate have been delivering comparative insights to the education sector in Australia since 2006, helping institutions deliver a world-class student experience to enhance their competitive advantage. Stephen’s experience and approach is the perfect counterpart to ensure our continued success partnering providers in this dynamic market.

Stephen has begun the transition process, working closely with outgoing Director Kevin Brett, and will fully assume the role in February 2017. 

About i-graduate
i-graduate tracks and benchmarks student and stakeholder opinions across the entire student journey, from prospective students to alumni. Established in 2005, i-graduate has obtained feedback from 2.7 million students and worked with 1,400 institutions in over 30 countries. i-graduate runs the world’s largest survey of international student satisfaction - the International Student Barometer - as well as surveys of domestic students, TNE students and distance learners, English language learners and education agents. In Australia i-graduate also runs the suite of benchmarking exercises for the Australian Universities’ International Directors’ Forum (AUIDF).

About GlobalEd Services
Based in Melbourne, Australia, GlobalEd Services assists education institutions to achieve their internationalisation objectives. Drawing on 25 years’ experience in Asia, Europe and North and South America, GlobalEd Services provides advice and assistance in strategy and business development, partnerships, relationship management, international student recruitment, transnational education, global mobility, staff professional development and organisational structures and review. 

​Alan Olsen reports:

"The Times Higher Education World University Rankings describes itself as the only global university performance table to judge world class universities across all their core missions – teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook.

In the world university rankings released in 2016:

Australia has 29 universities in the world’s top 500, and 12 outside the top 500;
UK has 58 universities in the world’s top 500, and 101 outside the top 500;
US has 121 universities in the world’s top 500, and 2,918 (four-year) universities outside the top 500.

In terms of total student numbers:

In Australia, 84% of students in Australian universities are at universities in the world’s top 500;
In UK, 51% of students in UK universities are at universities in the world’s top 500;
In US, 25% of students in US (four year) universities are at universities in the world’s top 500."

Who'd a thunk?

I'm about to head out to the airport to collect an international guest attending this year's AIEC in Melbourne - the excitement about the conference is palpable. Talk back radio is full of discussion about international education, it's in all the papers, and even on the tele, which goes to show that positioning the conference strategically between the football and cricket seasons was a smart move. They're even upgrading the freeway for the occasion (although I think they are behind schedule).

Competition for the moniker of this year's biggest topic includes: Do we need Agent Quality Frameworks? How are all those international education strategies tracking (Australia, NZ, UK, Canada, Victoria, NSW, etc. etc.)? What do we do with all that data? Will students continue to travel internationally for education, and if so, where to, where from, and why? Is TNE the next big thing, or just the next big risk? and what is TNE anyway?

That and more, coming to you from the Melbourne Convention Centre this week. See you there.

Reputation and profile, available programs, organisational structures, systems, policies and processes, staff capacity and capability differ at every institution. Student recruitment objectives may be broadly similar from one institution to another (increase numbers, fewer more productive partnerships and channels, improve or maintain compliance, recruit quality students, reduce cost of acquisition, improve customer experience, streamline processes etc.), but the road map for achieving success rarely is. Institutional readiness to support proactive recruitment strategies is a significant variable. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to improving student recruitment performance, but there are some fundamentals that are critical to the success or otherwise of an institution’s recruitment strategy.

Data

Where do students come from and how can we reach them? What do they want to study and where do they want to study? It’s difficult to answer these and similar critical questions without access to good data, but the data alone are not enough. Business intelligence and market research are key to developing targeted recruitment strategies, and to measuring performance and success. The best recruitment operations are always underpinned by access to data together with the ability to analyse data.

Lead generation (or, give me something to work with!)
 
Q: How many enquirers or applicants to I need to get one enrolled student?
A: About 4.5 applicants from 25 enquirers.

And those are just the average numbers. If you are in the volume game, consider generating (and managing) 25,000 enquirers, to achieve 4,500 applicants, to commence 1,000 students in a given year. Consider also that your 25,000 enquirers might require 4 or 5 interactions or exchanges each during the enquiry process and you either need some help or a good lie down. Visibility, physically on the ground in source markets, via agent networks, and in cyberspace, directly impacts your institution’s ability to generate interest from prospective students. Once you have generated interest, you have something to work with. But can you handle the traffic - can your resources, systems and processes manage the volume effectively?

Go digital

A comprehensive digital strategy should be applied to every stage in the student lifecycle – from attraction, engagement, nurturing, conversion and enrolment through to teaching, graduation and alumni. Easier said than done. As global internet connectivity improves and smartphone adoption increases so too does the opportunity to reach prospective students more efficiently, wherever in the world they may be. The challenge for recruiters is to remain current with digital trends, including being able to engage credibly with a young and tech-savvy target audience across diverse markets. This requires an understanding of language preferences, search engine favourites, device popularity, social media trends and cultural inclinations, and how these impact attraction and conversion. A country-specific digital recruitment strategy might comprise:

• dedicated landing pages or country-specific microsites
• investment in SEO and paid search
• lead generation partnerships
• country-specific content, including blogs, chat and social media

 and don’t forget in-country representation to complement your digital strategy.

Now do that in your top ten markets. Top three? Have fun. The upside is that a digital approach to marketing, lead generation and recruitment might enable you to divert scarce human resources to focus on high-value high-return applicant management efforts at a later stage in the recruitment process, when prospects have a greater likelihood of conversion than at the enquiry stage.  

A web of intrigue, or an intriguing website?

Everyone is trying to convert prospects into enrolled students. Most businesses fail to convert anywhere from 90-98% of hard earned website traffic, so obviously your prospects aren’t just interacting with you. You’re competing for their attention with everyone else.  How can you convert an interested prospective student before your competitor does?
 
Your website underpins your entire online presence - all roads must lead here. A website audit is a great place to start. Understanding your prospects’ behaviour whilst on your site is critical and can be done via Google Analytics.  Here you can see your site’s wins and losses, and where you have opportunities to improve web performance. It’s all about stickability. Are you complementing your campaigns with dedicated landing pages?  Can prospective students find the information they need, quickly and easily? Can visitors make an enquiry via web-form or chat? 

Go it alone or BFFs?

If you want to go it alone, stop reading this now and get back to work – there’s too much to do. Otherwise, keep reading while we consider some partnerships you need to activate to help you achieve your goals.
 
International offices tend to focus on their Best Foreign Friends – recruitment agents, in-country representatives or partner institutions overseas. Of course they are important, and you need a strategy to manage those relationships and monitor performance. But there’s some important stakeholders closer to home you need to cosy up to.
 
Since you never have enough resources to do everything you’d like to, your Best Faculty Friends should be your first port of call. Ultimately that’s where the students end up anyway, so figure out a way to utlilise faculty resources to their benefit and yours. Devolved structures within universities often mean that international offices have not enough or little direct control over the marketing resources required to develop, implement and support specialised international marketing and recruitment strategies, so it’s not just faculty friends you need to cultivate. “Who manages our Instagram account, again?” Central marketing teams should be besties with their international office colleagues anyway – you’re all on the same side, aren’t you?

Program focus

One way to win over your BFF’s in the academy is to focus on program recruitment. There’s at least a couple of ways to go about it.
 
The first will require an understanding of demand at the program level, and some neat low-cost promotional strategies, but that’s where digital recruitment steps up to the plate. Virtual fairs, utilising your prospect pool, drawing information from your website, and driving interest through your key recruitment channels, facilitated by real time advising by faculty, can be done from your desktop, with not an airport lounge in sight. In-country events can also be organised - obviously more expensive – but however you go about it, targeted program level campaigns can be highly effective.
 
Another approach is cohort recruitment from overseas partner institutions into specified programs. This is a step beyond stock standard articulation arrangements, and requires a solid relationship and shared objectives with your partner, but can be highly effective not only in increasing numbers, but also balancing market shifts that impact retail (i.e. agent) recruitment activity. And the most successful program collaborations lead over time to spin off collaborations between partners including two-way student mobility, staff mobility and research collaborations. Where do I sign up?

Process improvements

We’ve hinted at this already – no point generating lots of interest if you can’t respond efficiently and effectively to convert prospects into students. This applies to managing enquiries and applications, getting offers back to applicants quickly, following up offers that haven’t been accepted, processing acceptances and starting the visa application process. When was the last time you conducted a process audit? And what about your BFF’s in the academy? Encouraged by your program level campaigns, are they working diligently to turn around the more difficult applications so you can get a timely response back to students and agents? Or are they buried under a pile of term papers? Can you help them and help yourself by strategically utilising automation technology to streamline your conversion and engagement with prospects?

So that’s a lot to think about if you want to improve student recruitment performance. Did we mention having a plan (which is where you need to start)? Hang on, I think there’s one in this drawer.

​
 
Stephen Connelly                                                                                                                Stella Haros
GlobalEd Services                                                                                                     Blue Rock Concepts
www.globaledservices.com                                                                        www.bluerockconcepts.com.au

This article appeared in the July 2016 edition of the AIRC Insider

Two staple undergraduate business specialisations at Australian universities are Marketing and Management. We studied onshore enrolment data from 2012-2014 to see how popular they are with international students. 

Bachelor of Business (Marketing)

13 universities reported onshore enrolments in a Bachelor of Business (Marketing) or equivalent program between 2012 and 2014. 3,690 total students were enrolled in the program in 2014, with 805 or 21.8% international. The largest program in 2014 enrolled 279 international students, or a remarkable 34.6% of all international students studying the program in Australia at the time.
 
Domestic student enrolments over the period rose by 11.6%, in contrast to international student enrolments, which declined substantially by 22.6%.  Of seven universities with more than 50 international enrolments in 2012, five had suffered significant decreases in enrolments by 2014 and only two showed growth.
 
As noted above, 21.8% of onshore students in Marketing programs in Australian universities in 2014 were international, down from 28.7% in 2012. The range of variation between universities was substantial, from 85% at the university with the highest proportion of international students to just 4.5%.
 
International students from 63 countries enrolled in Marketing programs at Australian universities between 2012 and 2014. The top 10 source countries accounted for just over three-quarters of all international students - one quarter of them from China, followed by Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Hong Kong.
 
In the context of an overall decline of 22.6% in international enrolments in Marketing programs between 2012 and 2014, important source countries showed declining trends. Four of the top five countries fell – China, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia – while only Vietnam increased enrolments.
 
While the Bachelor of Business (Marketing) remains a popular program with international students from a wide range of countries, enrolment trends generally between 2012 and 2014 were significantly downward.  

Bachelor of Business (Management)

11 universities reported onshore enrolments in a Bachelor of Business (Management) or equivalent program between 2012 and 2014. 5,775 total students were enrolled in the program in 2014, 1,589 or 27.5% of them international. The largest program in 2014 enrolled 478 international students, or just under one third of all international students studying the program in Australian universities at the time.
 
Domestic student enrolments over the period rose by a substantial 36.2% while international student enrolments fell 2.5%.  Trends varied between universities - five experienced positive growth in international student enrolments, five fell and one remained stable.
 
27.5% of students in the program in universities in 2014 were international students, down from 34.7% in 2012. Again, there was considerable variation among universities in the proportion of their undergraduate management students who were international in 2014, from 48.7% down to 5.9%.
 
International students from 89 countries enrolled in Bachelor of Business (Management) programs onshore in Australian universities between 2012 and 2014. The top 10 source countries accounted for more than 80% of all international students, with almost one third from China, followed by Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. China declined significantly between 2012 and 2014, offset by increased numbers from India, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.
 
The Bachelor of Business (Management) is a program popular with international students from a wide range of countries. Enrolment growth in recent years has been marginally negative.

Both programs show an increase in popularity with domestic students, contrasted with falling popularity among international students.

Stephen Connelly (GlobalEd Services) and Dennis Murray (IDEON)

Technical note
 
This analysis is based on data from the Australian Government’s Higher Education Information Management System (HEIMS) and university websites.  The accuracy of the HEIMS analysis is entirely dependent on the data as submitted by the higher education institutions concerned. There is sometimes considerable variation in the way that institutions report their data. The analysis excluded joint or double degree programs, single year Honours programs, programs with only domestic enrolments and programs with international enrolments of less than five over the period.

To discuss enrolment data analysis services email info@globaledservices.com