A rapid review of foundation courses geared towards international students in?the UK has broadly cleared universities of?accusations of?unfairness but did flag issues with low progression rates and discrepancies with domestic qualifications, particularly regarding resits.
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has issued its findings after having been asked by Universities?UK to?investigate following media reports that alleged that students from overseas were in?effect being offered a?back-door route into prestigious institutions on?lower grades.
The QAA looked at both international foundation programmes – an additional year’s study designed to act as an entry point into a full undergraduate degree – and international year?one programmes, which are equivalent to a first year of undergraduate study but with extra academic support.
Not all the 34 providers that participated in the exercise offered equivalent courses for domestic students, but where they did exist, the QAA finds that there was “broad equivalence between the entry requirements”.
The programmes were also found to be of a similar standard to equivalent courses of the same level, but the QAA flagged that there appeared to be “more opportunities and under more varied conditions to achieve successful progression” for those taking the foundation degrees.
Students taking their A?levels, for example, must sit all their exams again if retaking a?qualification they have failed, and individuals units can be retaken only once, the report says.
Policies among providers varied greatly, but international students were generally offered more chances to resit and a “wider range of contexts, conditions and procedures” in which to?do?so.
In its report, the QAA recommends that providers “seek greater standardisation of approach towards assessment practice and regulations” and, although it recognises that it is for providers to determine their own policies, “in doing so they may wish to consider whether matters of perceived fairness with other potential applicants to the intended course for progression are relevant”.
The agency also flags “notable differences” in the rates of progression to the next level of study between the programmes geared towards international students and their domestic equivalents.
There was wide variation depending on the provider and the subject, with some confirming near identical progression rates and others reporting that students on domestic courses were more than 20?per cent more likely to progress.
Six international foundation programmes had what were deemed to be “very low” progression rates of below 50?per cent, with one as a low as 22?per cent.
The reports says progression rates may vary for several reasons, including “students withdrawing or dropping out, absenteeism, difficulty of the subject content, student language and skills competencies, or poor initial advising meaning the student is on an unsuitable course”.
It recommends that institutions “should regularly assess progression rates for international and domestic students, and should ensure they are considering internal comparisons between both subject and international and equivalent domestic programmes”.
Reacting to the report, Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities?UK, said the review had been commissioned to instil in the public confidence that university admissions processes were fair for domestic and international students.
While there were “no systemic issues” identified, the review had flagged “some areas where more consistent application of best practice is needed, and this needs swift action”, she said.
A spokesperson for the Russell Group said its universities “are committed to fair admissions and delivering high-quality courses and successful outcomes for all students”.
Member universities will work with delivery partners to consider recommendations made, the spokesperson added, and will work to ensure “that students, staff, government and sector partners remain confident in the standards of these courses”.
