Written evidence submitted by Oxford University
Student Union (SV56)
Oxford students are seriously concerned that unless
substantially revised, the package of proposed changes to the
Tier 4 Visa system will harm the University's global academic
standing, reduce our ability to attract top graduate students
and cause serious disruption and distress to those international
students who do attend Oxford. The Government has set itself a
hugely ambitious and unprecedented target in reducing net migration
to the UK in the lifetime of this Parliament, and is now proposing
a raft of changes to the student visa system in order to achieve
this target. Whilst the stated ambition of these reforms—to
combat abuse of the Tier 4 visa route—are clearly to be
applauded, there is a real and imminent danger that the changes
as proposed will have a series of deeply negative and unintended
consequences on Oxford and its students. We would urge the Home
Affairs Select Committee to examine these potential consequences
and to propose to the Government an alternative model of change
which seeks to build on and strengthen the Highly Trusted Sponsor
Status programme as a pathway to serious reform without seriously
detrimental effects. Only in this way can our international reputation
for educational excellence be maintained, to the immense social
and economic benefit of the whole country.
1. DEPENDANTS'
ABILITY TO
WORK
Of paramount concern to Oxford students is the proposal
to end the ability for students' dependants to work. Not only
is there the serious moral element involved in splitting families
or forcing people to exist in this country without a vocation,
but it is inevitable that this measure will deter many talented
students from coming to study at Oxford and contributing to our
academic community and the British economy both during their time
of study and afterwards. A sample of testimonies from current
students amply demonstrates this prediction. One student wrote
to the Student Union to say that:
My wife and I made the decision to move to the UK
for the duration of my DPhil given that she would be able to work
to support us both while I studied. If the visa process were changed
to disallow her from working, we would not have been able to make
financial ends meet, and would have accepted an offer from a non-UK
institution.
Another stated that had these changes been brought
in as they were applying:
It is highly likely I would have chosen a Doctoral
post in a different country. This would have been a incredible
waste of a scholarship to study at a renowned University, in a
country that I love and to which I have strong ancestral ties
myself.
Finally, another student explained their situation
very simply—"I would have opted for programmes in the
USA or in Germany, if my partner were not allowed to work".
There can be no doubt, then, that forbidding dependents of international
students from working will give other nations, and particularly
the United States, a huge competitive advantage in attracting
the top academic talent at a postgraduate level. For the relatively
small number of dependents who come to Oxford and work this is
a price which the Government cannot afford to pay at a time of
funding cuts to Higher Education and increasing global competition
for graduate students. We would urge at the very least that those
institutions which have been accorded Highly Trusted Sponsor Status
after a rigorous process of accreditation and inspection should
be allowed an exemption from this punitive measure.
2. POST-STUDY
WORK VISA
The proposals to end the post-study work route have
been met with equal alarm. Many international students amass serious
levels of debt in order to study at Oxford. The post-study work
visa allows them to pay off this debt whilst contributing to the
British economy, before returning to their country with a qualification
that allows them to become leaders in their chosen field of work.
Such a scenario is of enormous benefit to Oxford and the UK, not
just in academic and economic terms but in the diplomatic and
political capital amassed by teaching and serving as home to the
world's future business, social and political leaders. Perhaps
even more crucially, the post-study work route allows Oxford University
to employ as post-doctoral workers those top students into whom
it has invested years of training and resource. The idea that
we would send such exceptional individuals back to their country
or to other world-class institutions rather than retaining them
in our own Universities is a very alarming one given the competition
Oxford and other UK Universities now face to stay at the top of
their intellectual fields. That such a scenario is unavoidable
under the current proposals is again evidenced by individual testimony,
with one student claiming that:
I chose the UK as my destination to study (three
years ago) because of the flexibility it gave in knowing that
I could have an opportunity to do post-study work. By abolishing
this and also imposing more and more restrictions, I wouldn't
even think about coming to Oxford, even though its such a prestigious
institution.
Another said that:
Part of the incentive of coming to the UK was the
ability to continue in my field as a professional scientist. It
seems rather short-sighted to remove immediately from the country
all that expertise that has been invested into an individual through
the course of education.
A third explained that:
I feel that the abolition of the post-study work
visa is closing a door on the options that I have to remain and
work in the UK...I will be looking for jobs all over the world,
and one of the biggest considerations I will have when deciding
on a job will be how much of a hassle it will be to get permission
to work in that country. I believe that the UK is already lagging
behind the US and Europe in this regard, and the new visa regulations
will only make things worse.
Oxford students then would like to join the chorus
of those across the country urging the Government to reconsider
the closing of the post-study work route, and, if some restriction
were deemed necessary, at least to retain the post-study work
route for students from those institutions which are Highly Trusted
and can therefore be relied upon to produce graduates of the highest
academic ability.
3. RESTRICTION
OF STUDENTS'
PERMISSION TO
WORK
The proposal to restrict students to solely on-campus
work during the week would likewise have a deterrent effect on
applications from the very kind of energetic, creative students
which have contributed to the success of UK universities as training
grounds of global leaders and innovators. One student explained
how he had supported his doctoral studies by working remotely,
via the internet, for a consultancy firm in London, putting the
knowledge and skills which he had as a doctoral student to productive
use in the British economy. Another explained how he researched
and wrote articles on climate change economics for a firm in London
while pursuing his Master's at Oxford. Clearly, whether "on-campus
employment" is defined geographically or by the identity
the employer as a subsidiary of a university, this will prevent
a 21st Century student to use 21st Century technology to make
a productive contribution to the 21st Century economy of the UK,
depriving the UK economy of the skills of internationally competitive
students and dissuading internationally competitive students from
applying to the UK—which would only benefit the UK's competitor
countries which do not so restrict a student's ability to support
themselves by work off-campus in complement to their academic
studies.
We would therefore encourage the Government not to
limit students from Highly Trusted Sponsor universities to solely
on-campus work during the week, in order to avoid the unnecessary
competitive disadvantage which this would impose upon such world-class
universities and the counter-productive prevention of student
contribution to the modern, digital UK economy.
4. REQUIREMENT
TO LEAVE
THE UK TO
APPLY TOR
VISA EXTENSION
The proposal that students would be forced to return
home to extend their visa is another which has excited serious
concern due to the significant cost, time and effort which this
would demand of students in order to comply. It may be that students
simply cannot afford flights home (which must, by definition,
be far enough afield to be outside the EU) for what may only be
a few weeks, and the time and effort it would take might convince
them to study elsewhere. One student in Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship
commented that:
When I arrived at Oxford, I was enrolled in an MSc.
course, but I switched to the DPhil track after the first few
weeks. My generous scholarship pays for me to be here, but it
will not pay for me to fly back across the ocean simply to extend
my visa. Put simply, then: to me it seems economically and ecologically
inefficient for the British government to demand that students
wishing to extend their visas must do so from their home countries.
Another noted that the restriction:
[would] come either at a time when I will be applying
for jobs, or writing up my thesis. In either case, nothing could
be less convenient than being away from my department, colleagues
and supervisor. I fail to see why I should spend hundreds of pounds
on a plane ticket in order to get to South Africa, so that I can
hand in my application form to a representative of the UK government.
Clearly, although the symbolic nature of asking students
to return home to apply for a new course may serve the Government's
purpose of reinforcing the temporary nature of study visas, it
would be seen by Oxford students as an indication that they are
not valued or appreciated by the British Higher Education sector,
and would dissuade them from applying for continued study at a
UK university, taking with them to one of the UK's competitor
countries all the labour, genius and invention which they would
apply to their continued academic study.
There is also concern at the timing of applications;
if students graduate in the summer months and have to return home,
apply for a new visa, awaiting the processing of their application,
and obtain their visa before taking up a course in October, there
is a concern that any delays would prevent that student from starting
their course on time and with other students. Given that Oxford
terms are relatively short, any delays are particularly detrimental
to students. For Oxford it is also unclear how this would affect
students progressing from MPhil to DPhil courses, as this transfer
(which is effectively instantaneous on the passing of an oral
examination) would not allow time to return home and obtain a
new visa. Once again, then, it would seem wise to allow Highly
Trusted Sponsor institutions a full exemption from this measure
in order to allow Oxford and other top UK Universities to create
a pain-free system which would not put off top academic talent
from applying and staying on in Britain.
5. REQUIREMENT
TO SHOW
"PROGRESS" BETWEEN
DEGREE COURSES
A further proposal which we feel requires significant
revision is the idea that international students should be asked
to show clear "progression" from one level of study
to another. In Oxford, many students who already hold Master's
degrees may seek to take up a Master's course in a complementary
subject, broadening their area of expertise in order to take up
a higher research degree. Many wish to take a more practical Master's
course such as an MBA after completing a DPhil. We believe that
the restriction of only allowing students to study courses at
a higher level than a previous course does not allow for flexibility
or for the wide range of routes students at Oxford may take in
order to start their careers. Many students do not take a linear
route to studying a DPhil or to carrying out postdoctoral research.
The concern is that "progressive" moves may not be as
easily demonstrable as simply moving from an undergraduate degree
to an MA, from an MA to an MPhil, and so on. There is a real danger
that a student's individual assessment of a course as useful or
essential to their academic development, or to the development
of their career, will be unduly restricted by this measure.
6. REQUIREMENT
FOR ADDITIONAL
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TESTS
Finally, bringing in the proposed additional English
language tests would, for Oxford University, singularly fail to
improve selectivity and would greatly complicate the admissions
system. Oxford's English language requirements are currently set
well above level B2 of the CEFR, so any additional language requirements
would be entirely superfluous.
Concerns were raised by students that taking CEFR
examinations is often very expensive, and that students may need
to travel a considerable distance in their home country in order
to sit them. Placing this extra financial burden on students from
non-English-speaking countries would create an unnecessary barrier
in terms of access for students from non-majority English-speaking
countries, particularly since they would have already convinced
the University of their English language proficiency.
Furthermore, if it were the case that these examinations
would have to be completed within a relatively short time frame
(for instance, six months), students showed concern that they
would have to go through a lengthy and expensive process more
than once if complication arose with their applications. There
could be no more unfriendly and off-putting symbol of unnecessary
bureaucracy than a student travelling many miles at great cost
to take an exam which they had already passed in order
to come to Oxford. We therefore urge the Government to grant Highly
Trusted Sponsors an exemption from this requirement.
CONCLUSION
Taken as a whole, the Government's proposed package
of reforms would have a devastating impact upon Oxford's ability
to attract and retain those international students who are crucial
to our University's economic and intellectual future. As a high-level
student from the Commonwealth put it:
an environment where spouses are denied entry, or
forbidden to work, restrictions are placed on students' ability
to work to support themselves during study, and there is no recourse
to work immediately after study sounds like something I wouldn't
bother with. As well-regarded as the UK's universities are, there
are far friendlier places to study. This high regard will not
last long without the input of international students.
The Home Affairs Select Committee should take such
forceful testimony very seriously—unless a drastically different
course of action is pursued which would grant considerable exemptions
to Highly Trusted Sponsors, it will become common opinion that
the UK is not in the market for top international student talent.
Such a message would be devastating to the international competitiveness
of our graduate courses, resounding to the detriment of all students
British, EU and international who would seek to study at a world-class
British university, and could put a huge dent in our Universities'
abilities to survive the global recession and recent public funding
cuts.
February 2011
| 
