Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Landscape of Third-Party Pathway Partnerships in the United States: NAFSA 2017

399 views

Published on

A recent report released by NAFSA: Association of International Educators aims to understand the scope of third-party pathway partnerships in the context of the US higher education and the viewpoints of international educators on these partnerships. The purpose was to establish a baseline of evidence on an evolving partnership model with private providers for international student enrollment. Dr. Rahul Choudaha of DrEducation was the principal investigator of this commissioned research project entitled Landscape of Third-Party Pathway Partnerships in the United States

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Landscape of Third-Party Pathway Partnerships in the United States: NAFSA 2017

  1. 1. Results from NAFSA’s Research on Pathway Programs in the United States Tuesday, May 30, 2017
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Background on research project Institutional profiles Highlights of research findings Interactive Discussion 3 Agenda
  4. 4. Background
  5. 5. Regulatory implications Limited information Diverse institutions/pro grams High Stakes 5 The Why?
  6. 6. 6 Final Report Available for Download http://www.nafsa.org/Shop/detail.aspx?id=160E
  7. 7. Institutional Profiles
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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, Oregon o INTO North America partnership o Active recruitment through travel and use of agents. INTO network. 9 Oregon State University
  10. 10. Research
  11. 11. 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. 12. 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.
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Yes, we currently partner No, 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. Interactive Discussion
  22. 22. Engaged in third-party pathway partnership Explored but decided not to enter into partnership Still undecided Not even looking 22 Audience Poll
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. nafsa.org/pathwayprograms/ Rahul Choudaha (Rahul@DrEducation.com) Mark Hoffman (mark.hoffman@oregonstate.edu) Heather Housley (heatherh@gsu.edu) Joann Ng Hartmann (joannnh@nafsa.org) 24

×