Written evidence submitted by Nazarene
Theological College (SV6)
INTRODUCTION AND
OVERVIEW
Nazarene Theological College, founded in 1944, is
a partner college of The University of Manchester. It has some
250 students, over 40% of whom are from outside the UK (not all
of these are on student visas: some are from the EU, and more
are part-time students or on student visas). These students are
all on HE courses, from PhD to CertHE level.
The College has a world-wide reputation in the area
of Wesley Studies, with some 50 PhD students studying at the college—most
of whom are from outside the UK and EU.
Full time students and student visitors are finding
it increasingly difficult to obtain the necessary visas in a timely
and systematic manner. We are concerned that increased restrictions
on Tier 4 migration will discourage students from attending here,
and erode the high standing in which the college is held. These
students bring significant income to the College, its University,
and the economy at large, and it would be a disaster were they
to be excluded or discouraged from coming here.
The focus of restrictions should be on "bogus
institutions" and on "bogus students"; on ensuring
that the UKBA tracks and acts on students whom institutions report
as withdrawn or defaulted. We should not be targeting genuine
students and genuine institutions. Private sector institutions
whose HE courses are all validated by reputable British universities
should be treated in line with their partner university institutions.
1. Cuts to Visas for certain courses
It is undeniable that the "student visa"
route has been an easy way into the UK for students with no intention
of pursuing studies. In recent years, "bogus colleges"
with no academic standing have been allowed to flourish, and students
have been granted visas to take up courses there. For this reason,
we have welcomed a more rigorous assessment of institutions, and
would want to ensure that all sponsoring institutions are genuinely
academically validated. Not to do so would erode confidence in
UK HE.
This might suggest that we would support restrictions
of visas at sub-degree level. However, I would note that often
students who wish to attend UK institutions need to be exposed
to English language study, and this is almost always at sub-degree
level. If a way can be found to ensure that the institutions which
offer such programmes are reputable and of good standing, then
we would support their continued ability to sponsor students,
as they provide a valuable service to the HE sector. But we must
be rigorous in denying sponsor status to institutions that do
not meet these requirements.
I would also note that there are times when students
are required to take pre-sessional studies, as foundations for
their degree work. It would be counter-productive if students
were barred from taking such preliminary studies, so long as they
have firm offers of a place when their pre-sessional work is complete.
2. Impact of cuts on sectors
The proposed cuts would hit HE very hard, as they
bring much-needed income to the HE sector - particularly at postgraduate
level. Some of the suggested restrictions (that students no longer
be allowed to work 20 hours, or their spouses to work) would mean
that students would be less inclined to choose the UK as a study
location. Increasingly, only students who have state resources
or significant private wealth will be able to come to the UK to
study, thus virtually excluding many of those who have heretofore
completed studies in the humanities, including theology.
This college would no longer be viable were non-EU
students, as a result of visa restrictions, to choose to study
elsewhere. Resourcing a global community is a key part of our
educational mission; recruiting such students is a critical part
of our institutional strategy and our fiscal viability. We are
a small college, employing some thirty members of staff, but our
story is replicated across the UK: we are outside the University
sector, and therefore often unseen and voiceless, but our disappearance
would be a loss to the diversity of HE and to the economy of the
UK.
3. The UK's Standing in the World
NTC has developed a global reputation in its specialist
area, and has built a strong partnership with its validating university,
The University of Manchester. We draw students from over 30 countries,
and they come to us because of the reputation of British Higher
Education and because of the quality of the product we are able
to deliver. It is also the diversity of scholars within UK HE
that is particularly and uniquely attractive. Its loss would be
both incalculable and irreplaceable. This institution is a microcosm
of HE in the UK: it has taken generations to establish, especially
in an increasingly competitive world-wide education system, but
it could easily be lost.
If I might offer an illustration: we are part of
a global network of 57 colleges and universities within our faith
tradition. It is to this college, in Manchester, that these sister
schools send their brightest and their best, because they recognise
the quality of the research programme that we have developed and
which we sustain. Our standards are recognised by our global partners,
and funds are committed to this institution on the basis of that
world-class research provision. This supports UK jobs and brings
funds into the economy. Closing the doors to this would be to
discard a long-nurtured treasure. Undoubtedly, these resources
would then be channelled elsewhere, to more welcoming environments
4. Effect on the decisions of highly qualified
graduates to conduct research or take up teaching posts in the
UK
This is a key issue: without doubt, highly qualified
graduates (those, for instance, seeking admission to our PhD programme)
will be discouraged from applying if there are significant new
restrictions applied. I include in this the removal of the right
to work part time (or for spouse to work); access to health systems;
the possibility of postgraduates to access post-study visas.
The right for dependents to enter the country and
for spouses to work is essential for the well-being of the student
and her or his family. The cost of living in the UK is high -
and most students with families need to contribute to the household
resources while resident in the UK. Denying spouses the right
to work would be counter-intuitive on several fronts. First, the
emotional health of research students would be adversely affected
by any additional financial strain on students. Second, the health
and stability of families would be adversely affected if spouses
and dependents were not allowed entry. Similarly, denial of access
to the health system may be catastrophic and inhumane for vulnerable
people, and Visa students often fall into this category. Denial
of access to the National Health Service would eliminate yet another
competitive advantage that the UK has in welcoming visa students.
All of these things are significant. And, of course,
if these research students go elsewhere, then they are less likely
to see the UK as a place to seek teaching posts or employment,
and this would impoverish the UK, diminishing our global reputation
in HE.
5. The post-study route
This is an important option for highly-qualified
individuals. We would not necessarily be opposed to this right
being withdrawn for BA graduates. However, for those with the
PhD (or M level qualifications) this provides a valuable means
of gaining experience and "finding a place" in their
profession. For those moving from M-level to PhD level, the post-study
visa often offers a space during which time they can focus and
form their research proposal, and work in the area, without having
to dislocate family and home. It is not unusual for there to be
a gap of some months or a year between the end of one set of studies
and the start of the next, and the post-study route helps with
this.
More significantly, it allows junior scholars to
gain experience in an academic setting that often is invaluable,
both for them and for the institutions for whom they work. In
order for the UK to remain in the upper echelons of the world-wide
HE market, it must be able to attract the best and brightest of
scholars from wherever. And it must be able to retain some of
those it has educated from around the world, not least in retaining
the international character of the institutions. It would be a
grievous loss were this to disappear.
Forcing graduates to return home in order to reapply
for advanced degrees would discourage our best students from progressing
to research study. Students often are encouraged to move from
MA to PhD study, and to be forced to relocate one's family twice
in order to do this is entirely counter-intuitive.
6. International Comparisons
We know that this government wishes the UK to continue
to be a world-leader in higher education. If we close the doors
to international students, then they will be welcomed elsewhere.
Canada, for example, operates a more generous post-study policy
than the UK, and has a similar policy on allowing students to
work. Australia and New Zealand allow students and their spouses
to work, and allows students to move to "work permit"
status without returning home. At a time of economic concern,
students bring resources to our country, and we must be looking
for ways to encourage those resources to come to the UK.
The UK should be focussing on "bogus colleges"
and "bogus students" rather than putting obstacles in
the way of genuine institutions and genuine students. Eliminating
institutions which take advantage of unwary students will reinforce
the UK's reputation; creating more barriers for genuine students
will encourage them to look elsewhere.
7. Summary
In summary:
- We strongly support the government's desire to
eliminate "bogus colleges" and "bogus students".
- We urge the government to reject several of the
proposals under discussion because they would have an adverse
effect on the attractiveness of British higher education. Specifically,
we would urge rejection of:
- any proposal to prevent dependents from entering
the UK, especially for courses lasting more than one year;
- any proposal that would prevent spouses from
legal employment while in the UK;
- any proposal that would restrict access to health
services beyond current restrictions;
- any proposal to close the post-study scheme for
M-level and post-doctoral graduates; and
- any requirements that students leave the UK and
re-apply for entry from outside when moving from BA to M-level
or from M to doctoral level.
January 2011
| 
