The MAC report must launch a debate on UK HE’s purpose and funding

It sometimes feels as if there are only negative stories about UK higher education, which makes the publication of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) review a particularly enjoyable experience. It was a report that was dreaded considering the context in which the review was announced: as part of a package of measures designed to cut immigration. So it was a relief when the findings were published. Given the limited time and data available, it is a valuable and forthright addition to the national debate around international students.

The finding that there is no evidence of widespread abuse of the UK’s graduate visa route and the recommendation that the graduate visa route must be maintained are reassuring to me and my colleagues across the sector. They must surely also reassure the government.

However, we’re not clear of the danger. The sector is yet to experience the full impact of the government’s previous effort to reduce international student numbers, barring most postgraduates from bringing dependants. Sector-wide, this resulted in the January international student intake dropping by nearly a third. This has already cost the University of Portsmouth a predicted £20 million. It will cost many institutions significantly more.

Attempts to diversify markets and reduce dependency on a limited range of countries will be significantly curtailed by this change. It will also have a disproportionate – some will say targeted – effect in specific regions where the UK might wish to have future connections and trade alliances.

But the MAC’s unequivocal recommendations do not necessarily mean that the government will change tack. I remain wary that elements of the report will be used to penalise non-Russell Group institutions. I hope I am proved wrong.

The overwhelming financial contribution of international students and graduate visa-holders is well understood. So too their immense contribution to their regional economies: in Portsmouth, for example, international students contribute some £155.5 million per cohort. Let us also consider the contributions of those on the graduate visa route. Taking the median income and contributions of the 114,000 graduate visas granted in 2023, the benefit to the Exchequer is somewhere near £400 million annually. Not an inconsequential sum at a time when we need to strengthen our economy.

Many in the sector will wholeheartedly endorse the recommendation of further safeguards against recruitment agent malpractice. In-country agents are an important part of the recruitment process, and the vast majority operate ethically and transparently. There are exceptions, and any wrongdoing should be stamped out. Many universities have signed up to the Agent Quality Framework and are open to the introduction of mandatory requirements. There should be no place for anything that undermines the integrity of UK higher education.

As highlighted by the report, the majority of the growth since the graduate route’s reintroduction in 2020 (and 66 per cent of all graduate visas) is from non-Russell Group universities’ postgraduate courses. We should be celebrating the contribution and international appeal of the UK’s diverse range of universities. The ill-defined “brightest and best” that the government is seeking to attract ignores the fact that many international applicants do not want to pay higher costs at high-ranking universities. Rather, they want a quality UK education that aligns with their values, needs and available finance. The range of programmes at lower-tariff institutions often align better with their vocational and employment aspirations. If diversity is to be maintained in the sector, we need a broad course portfolio, accessible to all international applicants, in institutions outside the Russell Group.

There appears to be little within the report’s 70 pages that will satisfy those who clamoured for its commissioning in the first place. Obviously, final decisions now rest with the government, but to reject the report outright would be to reject clear evidence from a review the Home Office itself commissioned.

There are several items within the recommendations of which ministers should take particular notice. They might focus first on ensuring “greater collaboration between the government and the HE sector”. Too often, it has felt as though government policy has been made on a whim, without proper collaboration, consultation or long-term planning. A significant degree of policy churn has left us facing an uncertain and unsteady future. We are crying out for consistency, something resembling certainty and a plan for the way forward. Vice-chancellors want to engage on what the country wants from higher education, how it’s going to be sustainably funded and how universities can help meet future skills challenges.

I was struck by the courage of the MAC in calling on the government to address the “current HE funding model which is driving the dependence on international student fees”. Now is the time to have this discussion and to build a funding model that is fit for purpose, instead of cobbling together a system based on short-sighted policy decisions and driven by migration-orientated political objectives.

The graduate visa route must stay: that much should be clear. But let us use this report as a launchpad for a wider discussion about the purpose of UK higher education alongside a sustainable funding model that will help us to achieve that purpose. Through collaboration between the sector, the government and our partners, we should commit to maximising the benefits that higher education and its international students provide to the nation. UK plc, the public and future generations of UK students deserve no less.

Graham Galbraith is vice-chancellor of the University of Portsmouth.