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

1. Results from NAFSA’s Research
on Pathway Programs in the
United States
Tuesday, May 30, 2017

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. Background
on research
project
Institutional
profiles
Highlights
of research
findings
Interactive
Discussion
3
Agenda

4. Background

5. Regulatory
implications
Limited
information
Diverse
institutions/pro
grams
High Stakes
5
The Why?

6. 6
Final Report Available for Download
http://www.nafsa.org/Shop/detail.aspx?id=160E

7. Institutional Profiles

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. 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. Research

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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Interactive Discussion

22. Engaged in
third-party
pathway
partnership
Explored but
decided not
to enter into
partnership
Still
undecided
Not even
looking
22
Audience Poll

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. 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