More than 25 per cent of international students continue to think British universities offer poor or very poor value for money, according to a study. When combined with the fact that fees in Britain are much higher than in other countries, the country's position in the market for international students is 'vulnerable', says the report by Britain's Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI). In addition, it found the workload of students at British universities to be 'considerably lighter' than that of their peers in other European universities. 'There is real reason to doubt whether English degrees will be perceived as being of equivalent value to degrees from countries where the requirements on students are more onerous,' said the authors, Bahraim Bekhradnia, HEPI director, and Tom Sastry, former senior researcher. 'This may in part be related to the low level of teaching provision made in some subjects, and suggests that our international student market may be disturbingly vulnerable.' In mainland Europe only 5 to 25 per cent of undergraduates studied for 20 hours or less per week, compared with 34 per cent of students in Britain. A significant minority in Britain were enrolling full-time but studying part-time, suggested Professor Graham Gibbs, former director of the Oxford Learning Institute, who provided commentary on the study. The report found that among undergraduates 27 per cent of first and second-year international students from outside the EU reported poor or very poor value for money compared with 28 per cent last year. This could contribute to a decline in numbers that could 'seriously impact the finances of a great many universities', the authors said. However, British institutions were among the most internationalised in OECD countries with international students making up 13.9 per cent of total tertiary enrolment, the third highest percentage behind Australia (17.3 per cent) and New Zealand (17 per cent). The share was even more pronounced at advanced degree level where international students comprised 40 per cent of enrolments, topped only by Sweden (43.3 per cent) and was more than twice the level in other OECD countries. But Mr Bekhradnia voiced concern that British universities were not doing enough to attract international students to Britain and keep them. 'Price must be a factor,' he said, pointing out that students in Germany and France did not pay fees. 'We know that lowering the fee would have an impact on people's willingness to come. So there is a case for subsidising the international student fee from non higher education budget sources to try to maximise numbers. I think that is unlikely to happen but I think there is a very strong case for that.' Professor Gibbs said the 'value-for-money' rating was influenced by group size and who undertook the teaching. Mr Bekhradnia said visiting Chinese officials told him earlier this year that increasing numbers of mainland students were picking the US over Britain because of the availability of better scholarships and the greater ease of getting a job in the host country after graduation. However, according to the OECD, Britain remained an attractive destination for international students, with 12 per cent of foreign students worldwide enrolled in the country. This was second only to the US with 22 per cent but ahead of Germany (10 per cent), France (9 per cent), Australia (6 per cent) and Japan (5 per cent). Between 2000 and 2005 Britain's share of the market declined by less than 1 per cent compared with increases in Australia, France, Japan and New Zealand. The Academic Experience of Students in English Universities, by Tom Sastry and Bahraim Bekhradnia.
