SUMMARY
The worldwide competition to attract
the very best Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM) students is increasing. Higher education institutions (HEIs)
across the globe are constantly striving to improve their offer
and attract the best STEM students to their campuses. In particular,
countries such as Australia, the USA and Canada are working hard
and successfully to attract students. Attracting able STEM students
from overseas is of vital importance to UK HEIs, domestic students
and UK plc. International students (students from outside the
European Economic Area) enrich the experience of domestic students,
can provide skills needed for the growth and future of the UK
economy and also help to cast the UK in a good light when they
return to their country of origin—contributing to the UK's
'soft power'. Moreover, they contribute very significantly to
university finances, often partly subsidising courses for domestic
students, and they even sustain some courses of importance to
the UK that would not be viable without their participation.
The number of international STEM students
choosing to study in the UK has fallen over recent years (by 8%
in 2011/12 and a further 2% in 2012/13) and the total number across
all disciplines fell by 1% in 2012/13. A variety of factors may
contribute to this decline, and it is difficult to tease out the
motivations of prospective international students with any great
certainty. Nevertheless, the evidence we received in this inquiry
suggested that changes to the immigration rules may well be deterring
students from choosing to study in the UK. In particular, there
has been a collapse in the number of Indian STEM students choosing
to come and study in the UK (down by 38% in 2011/12 and a further
28% in 2012/13).
It was put to us on numerous occasions
that it was not the immigration rules as such that were deterring
students, but their perception of the rules as a result of overblown
rhetoric from Ministers and sometimes inflammatory media coverage
in the UK and in overseas countries. The UK was seen as a destination
that was unwelcoming to some international students. Social media
were identified as one reason why negative images could now spread
very rapidly. For young, inexperienced students, perception of
a situation is key, and we would support all efforts to try and
bring some more balance and consistency of messages to a debate
which is often polarised and devoid of nuance. The extensive evidence
we received, however, pointed to difficulties beyond simply those
of perception, difficulties with some of the rules themselves,
their complexity and instability. The UK's offer to prospective
international students remains a good one; it is founded on academic
excellence, but it has been diminished by perceived and real barriers
so that the overall offer is not as competitive as it needs to
be.
Above all, we are concerned that Government
policy is contradictory. The Government are simultaneously committed
to reducing net migration and attracting increasing numbers of
international students (15-20% over the next five years). This
contradiction could be resolved if the Government removed students
from the net migration figures. Students comprise a majority of
non-EU immigrants, so it follows that the net migration target
can only be met by reducing the number of international students
coming to the UK—contrary to the Government's stated policy
to grow numbers of international students. Despite repeated invitations,
however, the Government have refused to remove students
from the net migration figures, arguing
that they are complying with the international standard approach
as set out by the United Nations. We recommend, at the very least,
that when the Government present the net migration figures, they
should clearly state what proportion of the sum is students and
they should not include student numbers for immigration policy
making purposes. Including students, who bring so much to the
UK economy, in the net migration figures, sees them used as a
feedstock for an all too often highly politicised and sometime
toxic debate over immigration.
We heard repeated concerns about the
immigration rules, their implementation and perceptions of them.
In this context, our attention was specifically drawn to the arrangements
governing the ability of international students to work in the
UK after they have completed their studies. We were told that
the four months granted to international students to find work
after completing their final exams was far too short and compared
very unfavourably with the UK's major competitors. These arrangements
influence the decision of STEM students as to where to study,
particularly for those who must fund their own studies. As a result
of the last factor, prospective international students, particularly
from India, are looking elsewhere. The provisions for STEM students
to work in the UK following completion of their studies also has
an impact on employers, who are losing out on highly valued and
scarce skills. It is particularly an issue for Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) who often do not have the capacity or experience
to respond to Home Office requirements on short time scales. The
Government's own studies indicate that we need more skills in
the STEM area to staff our workforce than can be found in our
own student population, and we recommend that the Government look
again at post study work arrangements. It must be paramount that
the UK economy harnesses the skills of international STEM students
as they complete their studies and seek employment. The UK desperately
needs engineers, for example, to help grow the economy. It is
self-defeating to have a system in place which deters international
STEM students from contributing to UK plc.
The Government maintain that they emphatically
welcome international students; unfortunately, elements of policy
and perception are working against this admirable aim. The view
within Government that current policies are working well is disconnected
from the concerns we repeatedly heard.
|
