Cambridge University Reporter


Report of the Working Party on International Student Recruitment, Selection, and Support

1. Introduction

The University of Cambridge has a global reputation and influence - it draws students from every latitude and its academic staff travel throughout the world to teach and to research. The University has an exceptional capacity and capability to make an impact beyond the UK. However, this international presence has been achieved without a conscious or explicit strategy for international student matters, and without co-ordination at University level. This contrasts with many universities in the UK and the world at large, which have - particularly in the last decade - launched highly visible, ambitious, and over-arching internationalization programmes. The great majority of these programmes involve explicit and aggressive recruitment of overseas fee-paying students,1 in what has become a highly competitive and growing industry; recruitment is sometimes a component of a broader internationalization strategy including systematic study-abroad programmes, enhanced teaching and research in international or area studies, recruitment drives for international academic staff, and the establishment of campuses overseas.

The Working Party's task was to provide a context for the University and its Faculties, Departments, and Colleges as they take decisions which have an impact on the international nature of the student body; and to make specific recommendations to assist the University in engaging with international matters as they affect students. This report chiefly focuses on the opportunities and challenges presented by international students in Cambridge, but it also considers the provision of study-abroad opportunities for Cambridge students.

The theme pervading the Working Party's considerations was quality - in the talent and potential of our students, and in the academic and pastoral support which the University must offer. The primacy of quality over-rides questions of numbers and of finance.

2. The diverse international student population

Table 1 shows the numbers and proportion of international students at Cambridge, and demonstrates the statistical significance of such students to the University. The presence of international students at both undergraduate and graduate level is not a marginal activity, but fundamental to the character of the University.

Table 1: Full-time students (headcount) by nationality, 2004-05

 ABC
 Totalof which
non-UK
B as % of A
Undergraduates11,9821,75914.68%
Graduate students5,4992,90852.88%
All students17,4814,66726.70%

There are overwhelming benefits from international students. Recruiting good international research students maintains and strengthens the University's research base, and brings international talent and new perspectives to research projects. In key disciplines such as science, technology, and economics, the UK as a whole is not producing enough talented and qualified graduates to replenish the current cadre of skilled innovators. International students are therefore essential to the vitality of such subjects within the UK, and to the private- and public-sector activities which depend on them. When international students stay in the UK, they bring skills and productivity which benefit the UK economy to over £4 billion per annum.2 Conversely, since many international students return to their home countries on graduation, Cambridge and the UK gain global influence - Heads of State and Government, and of many private and public organizations, have studied in Cambridge as international students.

Recommendation 1

that the Council and General Board recognize the value of international students to the University, and ensure that steps are taken to make the significant provision - academic and pastoral - necessary to support them

These strong arguments for the inclusion of international students are matched by strong arguments for diversity within the international student body. A broad student body provides intercultural learning opportunities for all students, both UK and international, and for staff; and, clearly, admitting students from outside the UK allows the University to seek talent from the widest possible pool. Table 2 and its associated figure reveal the change in student numbers by region over the last four academical years. These data show two trends of particular interest: firstly the strong growth in numbers from North America (attributable mainly to the Gates Cambridge Scholarships and the associated publicity, since the Gates Cambridge Trust has particularly targeted US citizens) and particularly from the People's Republic of China, which now provides almost as many students as Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East combined; and secondly a slight loss of diversity which, although not critical for the University, is uncomfortable given the benefits that diversity brings, and has regrettable and far-reaching consequences for some regions, such as Africa and Central Asia. Despite a rise of 3.05% in the general student population over the four years shown, student numbers from 66 of the 151 countries making up Table 2 fell, and there was no change in a further 28. The causes are mixed, including geopolitical considerations affecting student movement from the Middle East, and economic factors holding down recruitment from Africa.

 2001-022002-032003-042004-05% change over
the four years
Europe (excl. UK)1,6491,6601,6151,6892.43%
North America65373376684930.02%
East Asia (excl. PRC)680695658665-2.21%
China (PRC)190307424527177.37%
South Asia272155268270-0.74%
Australasia249250257232-6.83%
Africa238222214197-17.23%
South and Central America159155164141-11.32%
Middle East102988686-15.69%
Central Asia15101412-20.00%

Figure 1: Student numbers by region-stacked bar chart

Figure 1: Student numbers by region-stacked bar chart

Recommendation 2

that the Council and General Board include a recognition of the value of a broad diversity of qualified international students within the University's general learning and teaching strategy, and continue to monitor student numbers by region

Recommendation 3

that the annual internal Student Statistics data-book should include a table breaking down admissions by geographical region to assist monitoring of international diversity

Although the benefits - to the University, the UK, the students' home communities, to the student personally and to the broader student body - strongly outweigh the disincentives of including international students, such disincentives nevertheless exist. In considering the disadvantages, the Working Party found it difficult to generalize: a student from a cultural background close to UK culture, with English-language competence and a high personal level of confidence - and perhaps with a supportive family close at hand - will present far fewer demands than a student from a distant culture, far from friends and family and in a learning environment which is deeply unfamiliar. The unanimous view of College and University representatives giving evidence to the Working Party was that international students, generally speaking, require more intensive support than UK students.

Geographically distant students are difficult to interview, and a sufficient understanding of their prior qualifications requires expertise across the University and Colleges. Tutors testify to the particular demands made on pastoral care structures by students in a new environment, while supervisors and Directors of Studies disproportionately support such students academically - for example by correcting use of English in submitted work, and providing additional supervisions. International graduate students (especially those on one-year courses) present by far the greatest call on the various hardship funds administered by the University and particularly by the Colleges, despite the financial guarantee expected of each student as a condition of admission. In short, international students place major demands on resources, in Colleges and University institutions.

3. Income from overseas students

Section 2 above has rehearsed the academic, social, and cultural effects of including a critical mass of international students, drawn from a diversity of countries, and has concluded that international students strongly benefit the University. On the face of it, overseas students would seem to be valuable to the University for an additional and more concrete reason - that whereas the total per capita resource available to the University for a UK or EU student is considerably less than the full cost of tuition, overseas students, at both undergraduate and graduate level, may be charged something nearer that full cost.

Table 3: Overseas fees at Cambridge for entry in 2006-07
Arts£8,832
Science£11,571
Clinical Medicine£21,417

plus College fee:

UndergraduateGraduate
c. £3,400c. £2,000

In response to this funding driver, many UK universities have recruited overseas fee-paying students as an indispensable income stream. For Cambridge, however, given the level of academic and pastoral provision we offer, the situation is not as straightforward as this might suggest. Unlike most UK universities, Cambridge seeks to house as many international students as possible in College accommodation: this commitment alone makes it more expensive for Cambridge to admit international students. As later parts of this report demonstrate, international students also place significant demands on central support services, including the Language Centre and the Careers and Counselling Services.

At undergraduate level, the advice given by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Planning and Resources to the Working Party was that only if there were a radical increase in overall undergraduate numbers, and if that increase were accounted for entirely by overseas students, would there be significant financial advantage in actively recruiting many more international undergraduates unless fees were to rise substantially. Both the Schools in their student number forecasts (see Table 4), and the Colleges in their response to them, have expressed the wish that overall undergraduate numbers remain generally stable. Furthermore, from 2006 the reduced differential between Home/EU and Overseas composition fees at undergraduate level will reinforce the Pro-Vice-Chancellor's advice, as will that between Home/EU and Overseas College fee if the College fee transfer returns to a per capita arrangement.

At postgraduate level, the situation has changed considerably. As a result of the recent change in HEFCE's funding methodology for postgraduate research students (PGR), universities no longer receive any formula QR funding in respect of overseas student volume. This new funding model means that income for an overseas PGR is very similar to income for a Home/EU PGR, and that there is therefore no strong financial case for preferentially increasing overseas numbers unless fees are to rise substantially. Indeed, given that overseas students can require additional resource, at current funding rates there is now a disincentive to increase the proportion of these students. For this reason fee rates should be reviewed at the first opportunity (see section 5.3).

As for Masters students, the Working Party understands that, apart from prospective premium-fee courses, it is not in general financially sound to establish or run any standard-fee Masters course for the purpose of attracting overseas income. At present many M.Phil. courses are under-subscribed for financial viability and some are under-resourced. The financial advantage of overseas recruitment constrained by capacity, particularly in a residential and collegiate university, is marginal, and the student planning forecasts show aspirations for an increase in PGT numbers over the planning period to be modest. The facts that the University (both directly from core funding and through Cambridge Assessment (UCLES)) makes subventions to the Trusts3 and that there is a resource cost to the extra academic and pastoral support often required by international students, particularly those on 9-12 month courses and those from other cultures, further weaken the case for courses which rely on overseas income generation. Supporting international students adequately in a collegiate university is expensive. Financial viability can be achieved in other ways, such as by rationalizing Masters courses within Faculties and Departments and by moving towards greater collaboration across University institutions.

There are in any case significant financial dangers in over-reliance on overseas fees as part of the University's recurrent income, since the demand for study from overseas is subject to unpredictable external influences. To take China - the focus of many recruitment drives elsewhere - as an example, the flow of students to the UK may be interrupted by health scares such as SARS and bird flu; by currency fluctuations; by an economic downturn; by competition from the USA or Australia; by Government-imposed restrictions on immigration; or - as we have seen recently - high and deterrent charges for entry clearance. In short, the financial case for generating income from overseas admissions is neither strong nor persuasive, and does not disturb the academic and social case for international students in either direction.

Once the requirement of a critical mass for the sake of a diverse international student body is satisfied, Cambridge's interest is therefore not in increasing numbers for financial gain, but in recruiting for student quality. The pursuit of quality is costly and further reduces the financial benefit of admitting overseas students, but it undoubtedly continues to be the best long-term strategy for Cambridge.

In conclusion, the financial benefits of increasing overseas student numbers across the University are marginal, and, although there may be subject-specific instances where there would be financial benefits in recruiting overseas students of the required quality if the Colleges would accept them, it would be misconceived for the University to embrace a general policy of recruiting overseas students just for the sake of additional income. Indeed, attempts to do so would risk the University's reputation unnecessarily: our relationship with our students would suffer from the perception that our interest in them is pecuniary.

4. Should international numbers increase?

The number and proportion of international students is inescapably linked to the size of the student body as a whole. Although student number forecasts need further refinement and fuller discussion, the 2004 planning enquiry revealed the following broad pattern of aspiration for student numbers across the Schools for the period to 2008-09, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Student number aspirations by School and level [2004 Planning Enquiry]
 UndergraduatePostgraduate
Arts and Humanitieszero growthincrease of 2% p.a.
(mainly PGR)
Humanities and Social Scienceszero growthincrease of c. 2.5% p.a.
(PGTs and PGRs in roughly equal numbers)
Physical Sciencesstable NST numbersincrease of 2% p.a.
(PGR)
Biological Sciencesstable NST numbersincrease of 2% p.a.
(PGR)
Technologygrowth of 1.7% p.a.rise of 4.1%
(mainly PGR)
Clinical Medicinenot applicableaspirations for some increase in clinical numbers

In the planning enquiry, Schools did not, in the main, distinguish in their projections between UK and international students, and gave no particular priority to overseas fee-paying students in their aspirations.

These aspirations are relatively modest, producing, if realized, an overall increase by the end of the 5-year planning period of 198 (1.7%) undergraduates, 193 (14.8%) taught postgraduates (PGT), and 451 (11.3%) research students (PGR). The projections are dependent on external factors such as the supply of well-qualified applicants and funding.

4.1. Graduate students

In view of the strong academic and socio-political reasons to include international students in the student body, there is a persuasive case for some rise in the proportion of international students, within the projected increases shown above. However, given that the proportion of international students at graduate level is likely to rise in any case, in line with any overall increase at that level, no active management at University level of this increase is likely to be necessary at present (although close consultation between the Board of Graduate Studies and the Colleges will continue to be needed, to ensure that College capacity is not exceeded; and some Faculties may choose to pursue enhanced recruitment strategies). There has been a recent decline in applications for graduate study from UK candidates among UK universities generally, owing in many cases to the lack of student funding for home applicants. Cambridge is no exception, with such applications having dropped by 24% over the past eleven years.

4.2. Undergraduate students

At undergraduate level, although the growth in the student body reflected in the planning enquiry would be likely to result in a slight increase in the ratio of international to UK students, there is no reason why numbers of UK students should fall, and there are strong reasons why they should not. At undergraduate level, there is an ample supply of excellent UK students; and the University is in receipt of direct public funding for them, through a national funding mechanism which regulates the numbers of Home/EU publicly funded students. Because of the nature of that public funding, Cambridge will remain primarily a national university at undergraduate level, and international at graduate level.

Recommendation 4

that given current student number forecasts and the trends produced by existing admissions processes, and that there continue to be close consultation between the Board of Graduate Studies and Colleges, no active management at University level of international student numbers be introduced in the foreseeable future. It is expected that international graduate student numbers will rise, within the Schools' general projections and aspirations for graduate students, and that the ratio of international to UK students will therefore also rise to some extent. At undergraduate level, the increase in international student numbers is likely to be negligible, but current levels are appropriate for the University's mission.

The imperative consideration remains the maintenance of student quality, through rigorous selection according to academic achievement and potential. No increases of international student numbers to the detriment of that principle would be acceptable.

5. How to maintain and increase the quality of international students

5.1. Recruitment

The University has relied on its global reputation and its contacts to attract international students. There is now evidence that Cambridge is increasingly losing international candidates for admission to competitor institutions, at both graduate and undergraduate level. In the face of such strong international competition, the University is obliged to examine both the substance of its academic offering, and the means by which students are attracted, in order to ensure continuing capacity to recruit the best students.

While Judge Business School, in common with all other M.B.A. providers, actively recruits students for the M.B.A. course - including by attendance at international education fairs - central recruitment activity for other graduate students is confined to the promotion of scholarship schemes, the aim being to attract students who are academically qualified but could not otherwise afford to come to Cambridge. Very many students apply to Cambridge for graduate study since they know of the existence of financial support offered by the Cambridge Scholarship Trusts. This is helpful and appropriate 'marketing' in the Cambridge context.

Recommendation 5

that there be no change in the University's practice of not attending recruitment fairs and exhibitions, with the exception of the M.B.A.

5.2. Selection

Candidates for undergraduate study at Cambridge from certain countries and regions may be called to interview in their home region. In 2004-05, Admissions Tutors interviewed candidates in:

Applicants from the countries listed also had the opportunity to be interviewed in Cambridge. The cost of overseas interviews - some £29,000 in 2004-05 - necessarily restricts the number of possible venues, and the small numbers of applicants and admissions resulting from the interview rounds in Mauritius and Sri Lanka have resulted in those countries being dropped from the list from 2005-06. The Working Party noted that there was potential to reduce the costs of overseas interviewing by increased use of video-conferencing, but that a recent review for undergraduate interviews by the CAO Management Committee had suggested that the state of the technology (combined with international time differences) militated against widespread immediate use of video-conferencing.

Recommendation 6

that the Colleges continue to interview candidates for undergraduate study in certain countries by sending interviewers (appropriately briefed on the requirements of individual Triposes) overseas, and that the relevant countries be identified according to the size of the pool of applicants qualified by academic potential, certificated attainment, English-language competence, and availability of student funding

Table 5: Postgraduate applications and admissions by fee status, 2003-04

 UKEUOverseas
Applications1,9891,5187,201
Admissions8614201,001
Admissions as % of applications43.29%27.67%13.90%

In 2003-04, the University received more than twice as many applications for graduate study from overseas as from the UK and EU combined; but admitted fewer overseas applicants than UK/EU students combined. The ratio of international applications to international admissions is increasing, at both postgraduate and undergraduate levels. Every rejected application creates disappointment for candidates, and increases the workload for staff involved in admissions at every level, to no positive purpose. Consequently, alongside communicating the availability of financial support, the most effective marketing strategy for student recruitment is to provide sufficient information to encourage applicants to self-select. This is increasingly important now that electronic application for graduate study is possible, since the University's selection mechanisms will find it cumbersome and costly to process large numbers of applications from those academically or linguistically unqualified. The Working Party suggests that the offices of Cambridge University Press and of Cambridge Assessment (formerly UCLES) might be asked to provide basic information about the University and to support admissions staff interviewing abroad.

Recommendation 7

that the University respond to increased competitiveness by ensuring the high quality of the experience at Cambridge for international students; and by communicating the criteria for admission and success at Cambridge to potential international candidates

Recommendation 8

that the possibility be explored of the overseas offices of the CUP and Cambridge Assessment being used to disseminate information about study at Cambridge, and to support overseas interviewing by Cambridge admissions staff

5.3. Funding

While taking steps to inform potential applicants of admission requirements, the University must continue to reduce the irrelevant barriers to admission. Chief among these is the financial barrier faced by international students. Thanks to the Cambridge Scholarship Trusts (the first two of which, the Commonwealth and Overseas Trusts, were established in response to the 1979 national introduction of differential overseas student fees), Cambridge has a capacity for scholarship and bursary provision unrivalled in the UK. The provision of such scholarship schemes to enable international students to meet the higher costs they incur is the most powerful expression of the University's determination to recruit on grounds of potential alone. Since there is evidence of excellent applicants choosing firm offers of funding from rival institutions over the prospect of a future decision on funding at Cambridge, we must move swiftly towards a financial support-with-offer package if we are to compete for outstanding international students in a highly competitive market. The Working Party welcomes the high priority given to such financial support in the 800th Anniversary Campaign.

The Cambridge Scholarship Trusts give some support to 1,973 (42%) of the 4,667 international students in residence (2004-05) (Table 7, below). Many (but not all) 'scheme' awards meet full costs (of University and College fees plus maintenance to the minimum required by the BGS for a financial guarantee).

The Trusts, having finite resources at their disposal and wishing to use them to enable as many gifted students as possible to come into residence, spread those resources widely, according to assessed individual need. This results in many successful admissions, but also in many students being funded to minimum thresholds for maintenance, and consequently constantly skirting the edge of financial difficulty. The Working Party heard consistent evidence that international graduate students were by far the most likely to seek recourse to hardship funds.

Table 6: New awards made by the Cambridge Scholarship Trusts in 2004-05

 Schemes4BursariesTotal
Cambridge Commonwealth Trust203112315
Cambridge Overseas Trust205195400
Cambridge European Trust0158158
Gates Cambridge Trust77077
Total485465950

Table 7: Students in residence in receipt of awards from the Trusts, 2004-05

 SchemesBursariesTotal
Cambridge Commonwealth Trust459224683
Cambridge Overseas Trust404337741
Cambridge European Trust0315315
Gates Cambridge Trust2340 234
Total1,0978761,973

Recommendation 9

that where Cambridge has a measure of control over the award made, we should seek to fund above the minimum for living expenses, to avoid hardship and the demands that hardship places on other sources of funds (particularly in Colleges)

Funding for one year with a subsequent two years is currently offered by the Cambridge Trusts to some students seeking to study for a Ph.D. but admitted for an M.Phil. course 'in the first instance'. This frequently leads to uncertainty, distraction, and possibly immigration difficulties, towards the end of the third year, when candidates run out of funding but are not often ready to submit the Ph.D. dissertation. The Working Party considers that to attract the best graduate students, a guarantee at the outset of full funding (i.e. University and College fees plus maintenance at the assessed minimum level for a full three years for a Ph.D., whether or not preceded by an M.Phil.) is necessary, and is of the view that providing fuller and more robust support is desirable even at the cost of supporting fewer students.

Recommendation 10

Candidates successful in applications for funding should be offered such funding for the full length of their course (i.e. 1+3 funding for a Masters and Ph.D., rather than 1+2), even if this means supporting fewer students

5.4. Admissions process

The length and complexities of the admission process for graduate students, in particular, are a current cause for concern. After a student has applied for admission, there are many different points at which the application is considered on its merits; and a parallel process in which decisions on funding are made, for Dorothy Hodgkin Scholarships, ORS awards, and for those administered by the Cambridge Scholarship Trusts (see Figure 2).

The entire process can take up to six months. Many students spend several months in a state of 'conditional' acceptance while they attempt to meet their financial, academic or English language requirements, and some offers are not finalized until August or September, for admission on 1 October. During this time, the best applicants are able to select between rival offers, and Cambridge - in theory and practice - therefore loses excellent applicants to competitor institutions who can make firm and well-funded offers. These delays result from selection processes in Faculties and Departments, in Colleges, and in the office of the Board of Graduate Studies.

The Working Party noted that the Colleges had agreed, for their part, to keep applications for no longer than one month in order to determine whether an offer of a College place would be made.

These procedural delays are sometimes exacerbated by the Cambridge Scholarship Trusts' need to piece together individual students' available funding, tailor awards according to perceived financial need, and match those needs with the funding schemes available to the Trusts. At present the Trusts' office can only begin this intensive task after an offer of admission has been made and the necessary documentation received from the office of the Board of Graduate Studies.

Figure 2: Graduate admissions through the Board of Graduate Studies

rep6037fig2.gif

The Working Party received views that central University co-ordination of financial support for students would make it easier to present students with a robust financial package in a more timely fashion. Central co-ordination may be beneficial to many categories of students, but the clear initial need is presented by overseas students at the graduate level. The prospect of the 800th Campaign generating funding for students makes the need to consider administration of that funding doubly pressing.

Recommendation 11

that the Board of Graduate Studies work with Faculties and Departments and the Colleges to establish agreements about the speed of processing an application for graduate study, and to shorten the overall length of time from application to firm offer

The Working Party was clear that decisions on admission, and on funding from the Cambridge Scholarship Trusts, should be accelerated to allow students to receive an early package offering both admission and funding. Helpfully, the ORS award scheme, until now subject to a national timetable within which UK universities made nominations, has now been delegated completely to universities, and so Cambridge is, from 2006, able to offer awards on its own authority, and to its own timetable. (ORS awards, awarded competitively on academic merit, provide the difference between the overseas rate of University fee and the home rate.) It should therefore now be possible for decisions on both the Dorothy Hodgkin Scholarships (for the best applicants from specified countries) and the ORS awards to be made by March, rather than May as at present.

Recommendation 12

The Working Party strongly recommends that the University starts planning now for the central University co-ordination of student finance packages, as a possible means of accelerating the provision of robust and coherent funding to successful applicants at graduate level, and of incorporating the views of those most closely concerned with student financial welfare. This recommendation should form part of the terms of reference of the forthcoming Review of Graduate Education.

Further specific measures to accelerate the funding process are recommended:

Recommendation 13

that funding for applicants for undergraduate study be reviewed by the Undergraduate Admissions Committee, in the light of evidence that Cambridge is losing excellent applicants for lack of funding

Recommendation 14

that the Area Working Groups (recommended in the report of the Working Party on International Academic Relations) consider, on a country by country basis, whether there are competitive and prestigious scholarship schemes which do not cover full costs; and

that applicants who have been successful in such schemes in their home countries should immediately have costs not covered by the state scholarship underwritten by the University or by the Cambridge Scholarship Trusts

Recommendation 15

that any candidate for admission or seeking to continue after an M.Phil. who is successful in obtaining an ORS award should, according to need, receive such funding as is necessary to ensure full funding

5.5. Overseas student fees

Section 3 has drawn attention to the impact of the new funding model for PGR students on the income from overseas research students, and on the consequent incentive to review the overseas fee rate at the earliest opportunity. The level of overseas fee is currently fixed until 2006-07 in three bands - arts, science, and clinical medicine - applicable to all students, whether undergraduates, taught graduate students, or research students. Fees in each band are decided by Grace of the Regent House on the recommendation of Council, which in turn is advised by the Planning and Resources Committee. Up to and including 2002-03, the increase was at the level of inflation - thereafter, it has tracked inflation plus 2%.

At present the cost of studying at Cambridge for an overseas student (i.e. University fee, College fee, and cost of living combined) is comparable with costs at Oxford and at the Russell Group universities in London.

Universities are free to determine fee rates for overseas students. The level of the overseas student fee has implications for the recruitment and financial support of overseas students. The Working Party considered the following to be important factors which should influence the level of the overseas University fee:

  1. The actual cost to the University (and, for undergraduates, the Colleges) of providing tuition to the student
  2. The total cost to the student, including the College fee and cost of living
  3. Transparency of accounting
  4. The effect on recruitment of varying the fee above or below the cost of provision, taking into account:
  5. The strategic importance of international students to the University
  6. The particular strategic importance of research students to the University

Use of the above factors in establishing the overseas fee implies that the fees for undergraduates, taught postgraduates, and research postgraduates should be uncoupled, since these factors - in particular (d) and (f), and to ensure transparency - will vary for each category. The implications of such an uncoupling are unclear and may be far-reaching, but at present the University may be subsidizing the education of groups of students without having made a conscious decision to do so.

Recommendation 16

that further investigation be undertaken by the Planning and Resources Committee into the implications of charging different rates of overseas fee for undergraduates, taught graduate students, and research graduate students, while avoiding a single sharp increase in the fee for any category of student

5.6. Living expenses

Candidates for admission are obliged to provide evidence that they can meet a published minimum cost of living in Cambridge. The Board of Graduate Studies' current sum for international students is £6,526 for a 9-month course, and £8,593 for a 12-month course. This is modest compared to figures given in advice to UK candidates by some comparable institutions (£9,000 per annum quoted by Oxford and UCL; £7,790 for a 40-week year, i.e. £10,130 per annum, by ARU). The Board has consulted Colleges, the Graduate Union, and other interested parties on the cost of living and has agreed to raise these figures by 6% per annum over the next three years, rising to £9,615 by 2008. However, the Research Councils have raised the level of their stipends in recognition of a need to provide not only the means of basic survival, but also an incentive to take up further study rather than employment: the Research Council stipend for 2005 is £12,000 per annum. Colleges testified to the Working Party that international students were by far more likely than home students to draw on hardship funds. Indeed, other evidence was heard that the Cambridge financial guarantee was in many cases found to be insufficient once the student had come into residence. Colleges, being the prime providers of pastoral care, felt a moral responsibility to help international students in financial hardship, and very frequently acted on that sense of responsibility. In particular, students whose fees and living expenses had been met by a combination of different sources - to minimum levels - often needed to apply for hardship funds during their course.

Recommendation 17

that the funded minimum level of living expenses be set by the Board of Graduate Studies to a more realistic level

Recommendation 18

that Colleges collaborate with the Board of Graduate Studies to protect self-funding students from currency depreciation, by collecting fees for the whole year at the start of the course

Recommendation 19

that Colleges collaborate with the Board of Graduate Studies to identify students whose financial means are found to be inadequate shortly after the start of the course, so that they can be properly advised on their options (including leaving Cambridge) before debt is incurred

6. Academic and pastoral support to international students

Cambridge has much to be proud of in its tradition of personalized support for students, in both academic and pastoral spheres. This support is made possible by the collegiate system, in which a student can seek advice from multiple sources within the University and the College structures. It is particularly striking that completion rates for international students at Cambridge correlate very closely with the rates for UK students, and that these rates compare very favourably with the rest of the sector. (The UK average for all undergraduates entering HE in Michaelmas 2001 is a 10.7% rate of failure to complete - 6.74% for the Russell Group of research-led universities - while the table below shows the Cambridge equivalent at 2.0%.)

Table 8: Percentages of Cambridge students starting in Michaelmas 2001 who failed to complete their degrees successfully

 UndergraduatePGTPGR
UK2.0%11.0%5.9%
International1.9%2.2%6.0%

The very great majority of students registered for the part-time Master of Studies and Master of Education degrees, and for the P.G.C.E., are UK students, accounting for the anomalously high ratio of UK taught postgraduate (PGT) students failing to complete.

However, there are some inconsistencies and gaps in provision, particularly in pastoral support, and particularly at graduate level.

Whereas responsibility for academic support is constitutionally shared between the University and the Colleges, pastoral support has been overwhelmingly provided by the Colleges. University support has been largely confined to the specialist provision described below, which is delivered through University structures largely for reasons of scale. Noting that Colleges invest much time and effort in supporting international students, often to very high standards and often tailored to individual needs, the Working Party nevertheless heard compelling evidence that College support for international students at graduate level is not consistent. The Working Party noted and welcomed the Colleges' statement on College Provision for Graduate Students, which will reduce the inconsistency by setting out the core responsibilities of Colleges to their graduate students, and the balancing responsibilities of graduate students towards their Colleges.

6.1. Language support

The University's preferred benchmark for English-language competence is IELTS (the International English Language Testing Service). Where IELTS is not available, the Princeton TOEFL test is accepted, but since it places less weight on academic writing, it is not ideal for Cambridge admission. The current requirement (for admission in 2006) is set out below.

From the Graduate Studies Prospectus

From the Undergraduate Admissions Prospectus

If we make you an offer of admission and that offer includes an English Language condition, we will expect you to take an IELTS test. Details can be obtained from local British Council Offices. Minimum requirement: an overall band score of 7.0 with not less than 7.0 in speaking, listening and writing, and 6.5 in reading.

Where the IELTS test is not available you may take the Princeton TOEFL test. If you do this, you must take the Test of Written English at the same time.

Minimum requirement: 600 in the paper-based TOEFL test with 5.0 in the Test of Written English or 250 in the computer-based TOEFL test with 5.0 in the Essay Writing Test; the minimum score must be achieved in both parts of the test in the same sitting.

A TOEFL score without the Test of Written English is not acceptable.

You must achieve the minimum requirements no more than two years before the start of your course.

Some courses stipulate a higher level of English language competence:

Economics: all courses: IELTS minimum 7.0 in all elements

English: MPhil in English and Applied Linguistics only: IELTS 7.5 overall; TOEFL minimum 620 or 260 in the computer-based test, plus 5.0 TWE

Law: all courses: TOEFL minimum 630 or 267 in computer-based test, plus 5.0 TWE; IELST minimum overall score 7.0 with 6.5 in reading and 7.0 in each other element

Modern and Medieval Languages: all MPhils: IELTS minimum overall score 7.5

If your first language is not English, one of the following formal qualifications is required:

  • GCSE in English: at grade C or above.
  • IELTS: overall band score of 7.0 with a minimum of 6.0 in each element.
  • For EU students, a high grade in English taken as part of a leaving examination (e.g. the European Baccalaureate , the French Baccalaureate, Abitur, etc) may be acceptable.
  • Cambridge Certificate in Advanced English: at grade A or B.
  • UCLES Certificate of Proficiency in English: at grade A, B or C.
  • Please note that if it is not possible to take any of the above qualifications, the TOEFL will be accepted. In the written-test a minimum score of 600, with at least 5.0 in the test of written English, is required. In the computer-test a minimum score of 250, with at least 5.0 in the essay writing test, is required.

These requirements are at the high end of UK university admissions criteria and have been revised upwards for 2006 entry. (An IELTS overall band score of 7.0 is described by IELTS as 'Good user: has operational command of the language, though with occasional inaccuracies, inappropriacies and misunderstandings in some situations. Generally handles complex language well and understands detailed reasoning.') Despite this relatively high threshold, the Language Centre estimates that 10% of non-native English speakers at graduate student level do not have appropriate English language levels, demonstrating a discrepancy between certificated and actual language performance. (In a smaller number of exceptional cases, students have been admitted on grounds of exceptional academic ability, notwithstanding that they did not meet the advertised threshold.) Testimony from academic staff supervising Ph.D. students reinforced this perception. Poor English-language competence seriously disadvantages the student and leads to high investments of time and coaching on the part of the student's Faculty/Department and College.

To ensure that the IELTS criteria are used to their full potential, the Board of Graduate Studies has recently recommended that each Faculty examine the minima within IELTS components (e.g. Academic Writing, Academic Reading), and is working with the Language Centre to conduct individual assessments of certain students pre-admission. Supplementary tests, including telephone interviews and submission of written samples, are increasingly used.

The Working Party was strongly of the view that Faculties and Departments must ensure that their admissions criteria for graduate students are sufficiently robust, and consider additional means of ensuring English-language competence in the candidates they admit.

Recommendation 20

that the University explore with Cambridge Assessment the possibility of a language test which meets the University's needs more closely than the current IELTS or TOEFL tests

Recommendation 21

that Faculties and Departments consider means - such as interviewing by telephone or video-conference and/or assessment of written work - of reinforcing the minimum University-wide criteria for ensuring English-language competence in the candidates for graduate study whom they admit; and that the Board of Graduate Studies receive the support of Faculties and Departments in enforcing, in every case, publicized English-language requirements for admission

Clearly, for selection of graduate students to be effective in taking account of both academic and English-language requirements, interviewing - in person, by telephone or by video-conference - is likely to be crucial; and such interviews should include an assessment of English-language competence.

Recommendation 22

that Departments and Faculties ensure that staff participating in selection of graduate students are fully competent to do so; that they interview in English; and that they include an assessment of English-language competence in their recommendation for acceptance or rejection

There is a complex web of factors at play in determining language ability, and it is not possible to generalize. The Working Party again noted the concept of socio-cultural distance: a student from a cultural background close to UK culture might prosper with an IELTS score below the current threshold; conversely, a student scoring above the threshold, but without these positive socio-cultural factors, might not. Pure love of learning or determination to succeed can not entirely counter-balance a combination of poor language skills and great socio-cultural distance. Study and presentational skills, as well as raw linguistic skills, are factors in the student's academic success. The Working Party formed the view that, regardless of the robustness of English language-competence tests to determine admission and of the importance of emphasizing a high level of competence before admission, there will always remain a need for high-quality remedial courses offered by the University for a limited number of students. In addition to bolstering the linguistic criteria for admission, it will therefore be important to provide high-quality and easily-accessible English language tuition to students who are found to need it.

Recommendation 23

that students who are admitted having met the University and course English-language requirements, and are later found to require a remedial English course, should be entitled to a place on such a course, operated by the Language Centre

The Language Centre's pre-sessional programme costs £1,500, and includes a five-week course and year-long in-sessional support. It is considered good value, but at present the whole cost is met by the participating students, and some who would benefit are not able to afford to pay. This appears not to be the case at any other UK university (though it was noted that other universities often marketed the pre-sessional course as a stand-alone course, independent of registration for the university's degree courses - an option which is not favoured for Cambridge). It was drawn to the Working Party's attention that in some cases Colleges are asked to meet the costs of the EAP course for graduate students who have been admitted by a Faculty or Department and found to be below the required standard.

The Working Party noted with concern that demand for the Language Centre's EAP provision greatly exceeded capacity. There were, in 2004-05, 20 registered students, with an extensive waiting list. Half the participants are referred by Colleges or supervisors, and half are self-referring, with many discovering that they needed support only after the start of the academical year, and so missing the chance to register for the pre-sessional course - difficulties with academic writing also often take time to become evident. The in-sessional course is available separately, at prices from £35 for a single supervision session to £800 for the full course, including eight workshops, ten supervisions, and seminars. This full course is a condition of admission for some students who have narrowly missed their English language requirements.

To support the EAP programme, as the Language Centre requests, would cost approximately £100,000 recurrent. It is not considered that this should be met directly by the Faculties and Departments admitting non-native English speakers, since this would provide an incentive not to admit such students; and since the number of students admitted with insufficient scores in IELTS/TOEFL is small.

The Working Party expressed its appreciation for the work of the Language Centre, which has so far (i.e. not including 2005 entry) helped 178 EAP students and 34 others, without dedicated resources or earmarked funding for teaching the English language.

Recommendation 24

that the University should invest more central resources to enable the Language Centre to offer the EAP programme to the students who need it, irrespective of the students' or their Colleges' ability to pay

6.2. Colleges

Colleges are responsible for the admission of undergraduate students, and have first-line individual academic support for undergraduates, through Directors of Studies and supervisors. Colleges also provide first-line pastoral care for all students, including advising on financial hardship. The Working Party noted that international students particularly benefited from the expertise and support of Colleges in the following areas:

Admissions

In admitting undergraduates, Colleges have developed expertise in interpreting overseas qualifications and the major scholarship and award schemes operated in candidates' home countries. Their experience allows them to judge English-language competence against University criteria. In the absence of a central office equipped to offer immigration and visa support to incoming students, some Colleges have dealt with such queries at both undergraduate and graduate level, although the International Office will increasingly support these efforts centrally.

The Working Party heard further testimony, also noted by the Colleges' Working Party on Graduate Provision. Some Colleges are able to make offers of full funding to their best graduate applicants - including overseas applicants - through College scholarships. Such scholarships are successful in securing excellent students, being prompt, generous, and dependent on academic ability rather than financial means.

In the majority of cases, however, Colleges are often readiest to make offers to those categories of student, such as publicly funded UK Ph.D.s, that are most likely to meet all of the conditions of their offer. As a result, categories of applicants in which the rate of drop-out between application and admission is higher (international students, self-funded, and those on one-year courses) tend to become concentrated in those Colleges that are statistically less able to exercise a high degree of selectivity in their offers to graduate applicants - often the Colleges with fewer resources available to support such students. This trend may be intensified in the future in that some of those Colleges reporting the greatest capacity for future expansion fall into this category.

Recommendation 25

that, as per Recommendation 6(iv) of the Colleges' Working Group on Graduate Numbers and Provision, the Graduate Tutors' Committee give consideration to the existing mechanisms for College selection of graduate students, reporting to the Board of Graduate Studies and the Senior Tutors' Committee

Recommendation 26

that, as per Recommendation 7 of the Colleges' Working Group on Graduate Numbers and Provision, an inter-college framework of agreement be established on graduate numbers, so as to maintain the Colleges' shared interest in good graduate provision within meaningful College communities

Financial

In line with their pastoral responsibilities, Colleges administer the majority of hardship funds to which students turn in cases of unforeseeable hardship. There is strong evidence that, since their ethos is to support students and prevent them dropping out, Colleges feel obliged to use hardship funds to support students whose evidence of financial means has proved unreliable. The Working Party was of the opinion that such students - particularly if identified early in their course - are often best advised to quit their courses before accumulating further financial commitment.

Recommendation 27

that the Colleges collectively formulate a common statement on the circumstances in which a student may be asked to withdraw for financial reasons, in the event that evidence of financial means proves unreliable

The length of time to obtain a degree in the UK higher education system is unusually short, and so most international students entering at graduate level are older than their UK counterparts, and are more likely to have dependants. Such students - whether their families are with them in Cambridge or in their home country - are more likely to encounter financial problems, and can place particular demands on College resources.

Accommodation is a critical issue for international students, and most Colleges will preferentially seek to accommodate international students in College accommodation if possible. The rental income received only partly covers the cost to the College of the initial outlay and the ongoing costs of maintaining and servicing the accommodation, and so the provision of accommodation is a major financial contribution by the Colleges to international student welfare.

The Working Party noted the special financial burden on Colleges in the rare cases of serious injury or death of an international student.

Recommendation 28

that Colleges explore with the University Finance Division the costs of insuring against the financial consequences to the College of the death or serious injury of an international student

Academic

The individual attention for undergraduates made possible by the collegiate system of supervisions and direction of studies is of particular value to international students, who are supported as they encounter a different learning culture. As well as transmitting knowledge, supervisions allow College staff to check a student's understanding of lecture material, to seek feedback, and identify problems. Supervisors and Directors of Studies develop expertise in diagnosing the common problems presented by international students, and can address the problems themselves, or refer them to others. Many supervisors provide additional English-language support to international students by correcting language errors in written work, and can sometimes refer students to the Language Centre for more specialist support.

Pastoral

Tutors, tutorial office staff, and accounts office staff advise students new to the UK on practical matters such as opening a bank account and how to telephone home; they also provide an organized network of student support through College mentors or 'parents'.

Induction and orientation is a College as well as a University responsibility. Colleges exercise particular pastoral care over students in College accommodation (which includes the great majority of international students) - even at the level of the care given by College bedmakers. This supervision and support is missing when students live in University or private accommodation. Colleges' responsibility for the students they accommodate leads to time-consuming everyday support, and out-of-hours emergency tutorial support.

For international graduate students, Graduate Tutors' secretaries are an important source of information and are key providers of College services to the students.

Recommendation 29

that the Graduate Tutors' Committee encourage the establishment of a regular forum for Graduate Tutors' secretaries

6.3. Counselling Service

Although perceived as pastorally more vulnerable, international students - according to statistics compiled consistently over several years - use the Counselling Service in the same proportion as UK students, although they do attend more sessions.

Table 9: Use of the Counselling Service by fee category

 Percentage of the student bodyPercentage of Counselling Service usersNumber of sessions attended
UK 74%76%5.2
EU9%7%6.4
Overseas17%17%5.4

International students seeking support from the Counselling Service need help with several issues. For example:

The experience of the Service suggested that there was a specific need for specialist pastoral and academic counselling support to international students at University level, complementing provision in the Colleges.

The Counselling Service is piloting a peer support network - initially at graduate level - in which student volunteers receive counselling training and make themselves available, particularly through their Colleges, to other students. The Working Party commended the initiative, which might help to address the social exclusion reported by many international students who use the Counselling Service.

6.4. Careers Service

International students use the Careers Service in a greater proportion than their UK counterparts. It is a valuable resource, whether students are seeking work in the UK, their home country or a third country.

The Working Party saw statistics showing a snapshot of activity in the Michaelmas Term 2004. International students (being 26.7% of the student population) accounted for:

International students presented specific issues to Careers Advisers. Mirroring the need for additional academic support reported by Colleges, Faculties, and Departments, socio-culturally distant students require intense help with preparing CVs and covering letters, often needing several sessions with Careers Advisers. Those wishing to find work in the UK also required technical assistance with immigration and work permit issues (this reflecting a more general lack of provision by the University in this area).

The Working Party noted that the projected increase in international student numbers, though slight overall, would have a disproportionate effect on the demand for support from the Careers Service.

6.5. International Office

An International Education Office (IEO) in the Unified Administrative Service was funded by CMI in June 2003, consisting of an Assistant Registrary post and an assistantship, with a particular remit to administer the Cambridge-MIT Undergraduate Exchange (CME). The office, renamed the International Office, has recently been established within the Academic Division of the UAS, and has been expanded with a further officer post and additional secretarial time. Its remit will continue to include support for the CME and other student mobility schemes, and will develop to support international students and those who deal directly with them, and to monitor the Bologna Process and its implications for Cambridge (see section 8 below). The office will advise Colleges and Departments on schemes for international mobility, and will undertake other activities not related to students, such as receiving international visitors to the University.

In common with the Working Party on International Academic Relationships, the Working Party noted that the presently small size of the International Office precluded quick assumption of a wide range of duties.

Recommendation 30

that Colleges and Faculties give consideration to the implications for their activities of a small central International Office, and develop with the Office ways of working synergistically

6.6. Induction for international students

Since 2003, the IEO has organized a single day of orientation for international students just before the start of the Michaelmas Term, including presentations from academic staff, the Language Centre, BGS, and the student unions. These pilots have demonstrated the demand for such orientation, and the usefulness of such events (resulting not only from the information imparted, but also the opportunity for new international students to meet and to share information and anxieties at the very start of their studies).

Graduate students arrive at many points in the academical year; a single induction at the start of October, although helpful, is therefore limited in its potential. The Working Party considered the process of induction to be continuous - structured around particular organized events, but not confined to them. There is a strong case for a substantial induction and orientation programme, with residence beginning at least a week before the start of the Michaelmas Term, and lasting throughout the academical year. The Working Party heard evidence that the Colleges, collectively, could provide the necessary accommodation, but further investigation is necessary to confirm this.

The Working Party briefly considered the phenomenon of cultural groups banding in exclusive groups. International students on occasion report British students to be very difficult to socialize with; conversely, Chinese students considered it to be culturally inappropriate to talk in English among themselves. Although the tendency to band together may limit integration, it is often a crucial support network for international students. An induction programme bringing international students together perhaps risks intensifying this propensity, but this risk could be mitigated by introducing UK students systematically during induction, and assigning peer mentors, particularly within Colleges; and, on the most basic level, by organizing events with seating plans. On the whole, the perceived benefits of serious induction were considered to outweigh the disadvantages.

Recommendation 31

that the International Office take the lead, in consultation with University institutions and the Colleges, in devising a substantial induction and orientation programme, lasting throughout the academical year, and with residence beginning at least a week before the start of the Michaelmas Term; and that the International Office, Colleges, Faculties, and Departments collectively establish a common understanding of conventions for the use of new students' time in the initial weeks of the academical year

7. Study abroad, and exchange schemes

As noted earlier, one of the benefits of including international students within the Cambridge student body is the potential for intercultural learning thereby provided to all students. However, it is clear that knowledge of India, for example, is best achieved by visiting India, and encounters in Cambridge with Indian students can only weakly replicate that experience. Study abroad is valuable both for the individual students, and, often, for the institution - at both Department/Faculty and University level - since ties are strengthened with partner institutions.

Study abroad opportunities exist in various forms for students at both undergraduate and graduate level, and elaborate and well-supported schemes, such as the Law Erasmus exchange, are in place for certain subjects. However, Cambridge mirrors the UK as a whole, in that inward student mobility greatly outstrips outward mobility. This is partly a feature of British students' poor linguistic skills and insularity, but also reflects the cumbersome structures necessary to allow UK universities to maintain academic and pastoral responsibility for their students while studying abroad towards a UK degree. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has recently published a Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision with broad precepts for institutions to follow, but it is not yet clear, for lack of 'case law', to what extent Cambridge schemes are affected by the Code. In Cambridge, academic progression is particularly difficult to achieve, since our taught courses are seldom modular, and so matching the content and level of a course between home and host universities is not straightforward.

The range of study abroad opportunities at Cambridge is therefore patchy. Some taught courses are arranged, by chance or design, so that study abroad opportunities present themselves; in others the curriculum depends on managed transitions and development between levels or concepts, and is thus less flexible. In some subjects the imperative to accommodate study abroad opportunities is so strong (in the Faculties of Modern and Medieval Languages and Oriental Studies, for example) that it sets the requirement, and other considerations are adapted.

Schemes for study abroad fall into two categories - those built on reciprocal exchange, and those built only on outward mobility (treated in the sub-sections below). The latter are used most often for research students, and in language-based subjects in which a period of study abroad is an integral requirement of an undergraduate course.

Within these categories, it is possible to identify characteristics of the most successful study abroad programmes, which tend to be either:

Most requests by non-research students (and by individual academic staff on such students' behalf) for term-time study abroad bring an institutional burden disproportionate to the benefit to the student, because the activity is not sufficiently routine, for either the University, the Faculty/Department or the College. Successful schemes of the 'elaborate' kind, such as the Cambridge-MIT Exchange and the Law double maîtrise described below, require very considerable effort, goodwill, funding, and constant curation to keep them successful - and their success, whether measured in the added value to the student or to the institution, is by no means universal or reliable without that significant work.

Recommendation 32

that the University and Colleges focus on the study abroad schemes likely to bring the most benefits, and develop expertise and procedures in those particular schemes such that, at local level, the activity becomes routine and well understood by all parties

Recommendation 33

that the establishment of new substantial study abroad schemes should be driven by academic priorities judged at Faculty level, and funded through the RAM, with non-recurrent central grants available as seed corn funding

7.1. Reciprocal Exchange schemes

•  Cambridge-MIT Exchange

The CME was an early project of the broader Cambridge-MIT Institute, by which it was funded. The Working Party had the benefit of a comprehensive Standard Review of the exchange by the General Board (April 2004), and noted its recognition of 'the success and value of the CME, from the viewpoint of both student and staff experience', and that 'staff interactions have allowed the CME to forge a depth of interaction not common in other exchange programmes'.

The Review recognized the elaborate arrangements necessary to ensure quality in the student experience, and drew the following conclusions about the distinctive attributes of the CME:

The Committee also made the following conclusions for the instigation of other exchange programmes to complement the CME:

•  Double Maîtrise

This scheme, operated by the Faculty of Law in partnership with the Université de Paris II (Assas), allows students to follow a four-year course leading to the Cambridge B.A. and the French maîtrise. Candidates may apply to Cambridge or to Paris for entry onto the scheme; all successful applicants study as a cohort in Cambridge for two years, followed by two years in Paris. The programme is beginning its sixth year in 2005-06, the first cohort having graduated in July 2004. Such schemes are not unique - King's College London has a long-standing relationship with Paris I, for example - but the Cambridge-Paris II scheme is now regarded as the best available between the UK and France.

The Faculty of Law internally reviewed the scheme following the graduation of the first cohort, and concluded that it should be retained and developed over the next four years, followed by a further review.

The scheme requires some £80,000 per annum to operate, which the Faculty receives in sponsorship from Clifford Chance. The workload expected of the students is very high, particularly in the second year.

Partly because of the demanding workload, some students drop out of the double maîtrise after the second year, and complete a Cambridge B.A. by spending a third year here. This causes asymmetry in the cohort, and leads to difficulties for Colleges, who need to tailor the number of offers they make to the number of students they need to accommodate in each year of the course.

Despite these drawbacks, the Faculty values the course because it helps to reinforce Cambridge as an international-level Law School. When the course was established it was anticipated that applicants would be attracted by the career development opportunities and rarity value in the workplace on graduation - but experience has shown that most applicants are attracted rather by intellectual curiosity. There is no question that, for the right students, the scheme provides an exceptional learning experience.

•  Socrates-Erasmus

Socrates is the European Commission's funding programme for education; Erasmus is the Higher Education component of Socrates, and is the vehicle for student (and staff) exchange. It assumes two-way mobility, but not necessarily symmetrically - for example, Cambridge exchanges a single MML student on a year abroad against several graduate-level incoming students, who go to Departments other than in MML. The underlying supposition of the scheme, however, is reciprocity.

Erasmus students receive a bursary from the European Commission (provided through the UK National Agency to the University, which pays the student), and a recognized status - they may not be charged fees by the host university, and universities in continental Europe often have Erasmus offices to take care of such students.

In those countries which do not charge tuition fees for students, Erasmus is very well-established and easy to operate. UK universities have more difficulties (fee-paying students are less likely to take risks by studying abroad, and universities are not fully compensated financially for the costs of operating the scheme). Cambridge has particular difficulties stemming from the College system, and the associated College fee, since incoming students may not be charged any fee, and neither the EC not the UK Government reimburses any part of the College fee.

Some short-term visiting students at graduate level have been received in Cambridge without matriculating as a member of a College, and therefore avoid the question of College fees. In a very few cases this may be appropriate - where a visiting student simply needs to undertake research in a library, for example - but unmatriculated students do not receive the academic and pastoral support that most visiting students require.

A successful and well-established exchange scheme operates in the Faculty of Law, in which Cambridge forms part of a network with the universities of Poitiers (France), Regensburg (Germany), Utrecht (the Netherlands), and the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain). Participating Cambridge undergraduates apply during their first year in Cambridge. Their year abroad does not replace any Cambridge teaching, but postpones the third year of their B.A. to a fourth year. They graduate in 'Law with a European option'. The incoming students take an Examination in Law for European Students, administered by the Faculty. This scheme is strictly reciprocal by College, and is very successful - the Faculty finds that candidates for admission to the B.A. choose Cambridge because of the possibility of the year abroad, and this interest drives up the quality of applicants.

There are clear benefits to outgoing and incoming students from participation in Erasmus, and it is not possible or desirable for Cambridge to withdraw from a scheme which is the mobility vehicle of choice for Europe - but the Working Party was clear that, except when strict reciprocity by College applies, the design of the Erasmus scheme makes it a poor fit for Cambridge, and it is unlikely to expand in numbers of students or subjects.

•  University and College responsibilities in managing exchange schemes

Study abroad at undergraduate level - in particular when there is an element of exchange - tests the relationship between the University and the Colleges. Faculties and Departments innovate in course design and balance their course needs and learning outcomes against those of the courses offered in partner institutions - but Colleges have a different set of considerations, no less founded on the welfare and progression of their students, but occasionally conflicting with aspirations in the University institution.

Incoming students under particular schemes and from identifiable home institutions have academic and pastoral integration issues specific to their group background, and the hosting Cambridge Colleges are therefore required to develop expertise in the management of such students. A proliferation of schemes bringing groups of incomers to Cambridge may therefore result in demands beyond the capacity of Colleges to support. Small Colleges find their student cohort fragmented if many students are out of residence at the same time, and the pressures on room allocation become complex.

In order to provide equality of opportunity to current students, Colleges should not by their individual policies deter students from participation in the Cambridge-MIT Exchange, Erasmus mobility, or similar schemes open to students once in residence. However, it would benefit the Law double maîtrise scheme (for which students apply directly before matriculating) to be more certain of support from Colleges.

Recommendation 34

that Colleges individually consider whether they wish to accept incoming students on the double maîtrise scheme, according to the academic and pastoral counselling resources available to them, and then work with the Law Faculty and with the International Office to build the capacity to manage incoming and outgoing students on the schemes

7.2. Outward mobility only

•  Modern and Medieval Languages and Oriental Studies

Cambridge MML students spend their third year of a four-year B.A. abroad, during which they complete a Year Abroad Project - a dissertation, translation project or linguistics project which counts towards Part II. Students may fulfil the requirements by studying at a university, or by employment. Some, but by no means all, of the study abroad places are offered under Erasmus terms, where an incoming student or students come to other Faculties or Departments.

The Faculty of Oriental Studies, through its East Asia Institute, offers a two-year M.Phil. in Chinese Studies, which (in contrast to the one-year M.Phil.) assumes no prior knowledge of the Chinese language, and incorporates a period of study in China. In the first two terms students undertake intensive language training in Modern Standard Chinese as well as courses in Chinese culture and in their specialist discipline. Students then spend the following two terms continuing their language and specialist studies at Peking University. During the summer break in China, students have the opportunity to undertake fieldwork or travel, and return to Cambridge for the final two terms to complete their studies.

Students taking the B.A. in Oriental Studies spend all or part of their third year abroad (eight months for Japanese, Middle Eastern Studies, and South Asian Studies; two terms for Chinese Studies; and eight weeks for Hebrew/Israeli Studies). The co-ordination and quality control of such periods abroad is a major logistical and pastoral exercise for the Faculty, and a significant expense. The General Board reviewed the Faculty in 2004-05, and the period abroad (and the M.Phil. in Chinese Studies) was considered in that process.

•  Vacation study abroad

Study abroad during vacations brings many of the personal inter-cultural benefits of internationalization, without the concomitant requirements for quality assurance and course matching, and without accommodation difficulties for Colleges. Such study is unbureaucratic, easy to operate, and easily understood by students.

The Cambridge European Trust Vacation Scholarships, funded from University resources, provide a cost-effective model. They are awarded in response to application from any Cambridge student, and provide a small sum - typically £250 - towards travelling to any European country (not restricted to the EU) for any worthwhile purpose, whether or not related to the student's subject. The applicant is not restricted to any particular host institution, and indeed may apply for independent travel, with a clear developmental purpose. References from a Tutor or Director of Studies are required, but application is otherwise straightforward. Field trips, or travel which is a compulsory part of a course, are not funded - typically a student would request funding for an intensive language course, or for a laboratory project in another country. The scheme is regularly over-subscribed, particularly for the Long Vacation.

Recommendation 35

that the University seek benefactions to enhance the Vacation Scholarships and extend the model to countries outside Europe

•  Research abroad for graduate students

Research students who wish to work outside Cambridge because they need access to archives, specific equipment, fieldwork sites, etc., or who wish to work with a research group in another university, may apply for leave to work away from Cambridge.

Cambridge research students may seek to spend up to six terms on research outside Cambridge. (Oxford limits non-resident research to three terms; the London School of Economics limits 'leave of absence for fieldwork' to 18 months and does not allow this to count towards the nine terms research required in London.) Students have not hitherto been charged University fees while 'working away' (and Colleges almost invariably follow suit by waiving the College fee). The Working Party noted that this matter was under consideration by the Board of Graduate Studies and so made no formal recommendation, but, for its part, formed the view that a waiver should not be automatic, and that the University should consider charging a University fee, at reduced rates, to students working away from Cambridge but still under Cambridge supervision.

8. The Bologna Process

The Bologna Process has far-reaching effects on student mobility. Its aim is to make the nature of awards more transparent across Europe - so that a Bachelors, Masters or Doctoral qualification earned in one European state is equivalent in level to a similar qualification earned in another. The Process is operated by countries acting intergovernmentally, rather than by the European Commission, and the UK is a signatory. Many effects of the Process are positive for Cambridge - for example, admissions decisions will be easier if broad equivalence across Europe is effective - but concern in the UK has focused on the effect on Masters degrees, which in many continental European countries are two years long. Taught Masters degrees in the UK are generally one year, and in Cambridge can be as short as nine months. The UK's presumptions that universities select students on merit and ability (not the case in some other European countries, where attendance at university is a right), and the individual tuition given, suggest that UK Masters students may reach equivalent learning outcomes to their continental counterparts in a shorter time, and the UK is encouraging the Bologna Process to incorporate learning outcomes into the methodology. There is no compulsion to change, but market forces - exerted by employers or by other universities - may begin to push Cambridge, and the UK in general, to bolster the content of some Masters courses in order better to demonstrate equivalence with continental Masters courses.

9. Co-tutelle

The Working Party noted that the Board of Graduate Studies has considered proposals to allow for graduate students to register for doctoral study in Cambridge under 'co-tutelle' arrangements with European institutions. The 'co-tutelle', which is well established in France and some other EU countries, allows a candidate to be registered to study at two institutions, under joint supervision, to submit one dissertation to be examined by a 'jury' appointed both institutions and, if successful, to receive the doctoral degrees of both institutions. About five candidates present a case to the Board each year for admission under these terms.

The Board has concluded that the standard 'co-tutelle' as understood by European institutions cannot be accommodated within the University's current regulations for the Ph.D. Degree, principally because of the differences between UK and continental European arrangements for the examination. However, there is enthusiasm in at least two Faculties for further efforts at investigating this possibility and some progress has been made by the French Embassy in producing a variant on the standard agreement that has proved acceptable to some other UK institutions. The Board is likely to return to this question in due course.

10. Concluding remarks

The international dimension of Cambridge's educational activities represents a substantial and significant part of our core identity and mission. In practice our international involvement is largely devolved to Faculties, Departments, and Colleges and does not need to be centrally co-ordinated. Similarly, the Working Party sees no reason to recommend managed growth in the number of overseas students, since, in the context of School and College plans, existing admissions procedures seem set to produce the stable numbers of international undergraduates and the modest increase in international graduates that will, in its view, best suit the University's needs. However, there are various aspects of our international education provision - in particular the support of international students - that would greatly benefit from a central accumulation of information and expertise, located in the International Office.

The Working Party examined and disposed of some myths: notably that increasing numbers of overseas students would necessarily have a positive impact on the University's finances; and that Cambridge's reputation will necessarily protect us from global competition for excellent students. The Working Party concluded that the pursuit and maintenance of an international outlook and global relevance was vital to the University's mission, but that, perhaps paradoxically, that mission could be jeopardized by a conscious marketing strategy focused on increasing international student numbers.

The University's excellent international reputation will be best upheld if we focus single-mindedly on quality. Seeking quality in the students we admit requires constant scrutiny of the standards which are relevant to student performance - including academic potential and language proficiency - and constant vigilance to minimize the admission barriers which are not relevant to student performance, notably lack of sufficient information about Cambridge, and lack, perceived or real, of sufficient funds. The early provision of full funding packages to attract and retain the best applicants was a consistent concern and recommendation amongst those whose views were sought; and it was a strongly held view of the Working Party that the distribution of Cambridge scholarships for international students should be coordinated and administered centrally on behalf of the collegiate University.

If we seek outstanding international students we must provide them with an outstanding educational experience. Seeking quality in what we offer to students implies the full use of internal quality assurance in our taught courses and research supervision. However, it also implies the need for attention to core services such as language preparation and support, counselling for welfare and for career progression, and expert central support for front-line staff such as College Tutors and supervisors, and departmental staff involved in student mobility. In its consideration of the very considerable support provided for international students by the Colleges, the Working Party was pleased to note the Colleges' forthcoming charter on provision for graduate students.

The Working Party hopes that the University will now consider not only how best to implement its recommendations, but also how best to ensure continuing oversight of the international student strategy it delineates, should this be approved.

The Working Party would like to express its gratitude to all those institutions and individuals who provided submissions, in writing or in person, to help in its deliberations.

11. Summary of recommendations

The key recommendation of the Working Party is that the Council and General Board consider the method by which the recommendations below, if accepted, will be taken forward, and how to ensure continuing academic oversight of international education.

Both this Working Party and the Working Party on International Academic Relationships therefore recommend the establishment of a small International Steering Committee, reporting directly to the Council and General Board, jointly chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellors for Education and for Special Responsibilities.

Balance of the student body

Recommendation 1

that the Council and General Board recognize the value of international students to the University, and ensure that steps are taken to make the significant provision - academic and pastoral - necessary to support them

Recommendation 2

that the Council and General Board include a recognition of the value of a broad diversity of qualified international students within the University's general learning and teaching strategy, and continue to monitor student numbers by region

Recommendation 3

that the annual internal Student Statistics data-book should include a table breaking down admissions by geographical region to assist monitoring of international diversity

Recommendation 4

that given current student number forecasts and the trends produced by existing admissions processes, and that there continue to be close consultation between the Board of Graduate Studies and Colleges, no active management at University level of international student numbers be introduced in the foreseeable future. It is expected that international graduate student numbers will rise, within the Schools' general projections and aspirations for graduate students, and that the ratio of international to UK students will therefore also rise to some extent. At undergraduate level, the increase in international student numbers is likely to be negligible, but current levels are appropriate for the University's mission.

Securing the best students: recruitment and selection

Recommendation 5

that there be no change in the University's practice of not attending recruitment fairs and exhibitions, with the exception of the M.B.A.

Recommendation 6

that the Colleges continue to interview candidates for undergraduate study in certain countries by sending interviewers overseas (appropriately briefed on the requirements of individual Triposes), and that the relevant countries be identified according to the size of the pool of applicants qualified by academic potential, certificated attainment, English-language competence, and availability of student funding

Recommendation 7

that the University respond to increased competitiveness by ensuring the high quality of the experience at Cambridge for international students; and by communicating the criteria for admission and success at Cambridge to potential international candidates

Recommendation 8

that the possibility be explored of the overseas offices of the CUP and Cambridge Assessment being used to disseminate information about study at Cambridge, and to support overseas interviewing by Cambridge admissions staff

Securing the best students: admissions and finance

Recommendation 9

that where Cambridge has a measure of control over the award made, we should seek to fund above the minimum for living expenses, to avoid hardship and the demands that hardship places on other sources of funds (particularly in Colleges)

Recommendation 10

Candidates successful in applications for funding should be offered such funding for the full length of their course (i.e. 1+3 funding for a Masters and Ph.D., rather than 1+2), even if this means supporting fewer students

Recommendation 11

that the Board of Graduate Studies work with Faculties and Departments and the Colleges to establish agreements about the speed of processing an application for graduate study, and to shorten the overall length of time from application to firm offer

Recommendation 12

The Working Party strongly recommends that the University starts planning now for the central University co-ordination of student finance packages, as a possible means of accelerating the provision of robust and coherent funding to successful applicants at graduate level, and of incorporating the views of those most closely concerned with student financial welfare. This recommendation should form part of the terms of reference of the forthcoming Review of Graduate Education.

Recommendation 13

that funding for applicants for undergraduate study be reviewed by the Undergraduate Admissions Committee, in the light of evidence that Cambridge is losing excellent applicants for lack of funding

Recommendation 14

that the Area Working Groups (recommended in the report of the Working Party on International Academic Relations) consider, on a country by country basis, whether there are competitive and prestigious scholarship schemes which do not cover full costs; and

that applicants who have been successful in such schemes in their home countries should immediately have costs not covered by the state scholarship underwritten by the University or the Cambridge Scholarship Trusts

Recommendation 15

that any candidate for admission, or seeking to continue after an M.Phil., who is successful in obtaining an ORS award should, according to need, receive such funding as is necessary to ensure full funding

Recommendation 16

that further investigation be undertaken by the Planning and Resources Committee into the implications of charging different rates of overseas fee for undergraduates, taught graduate students, and research graduate students, while avoiding a single sharp increase in the fee for any category of student

Protecting students from hardship

Recommendation 17

that the funded minimum level of living expenses be set by the Board of Graduate Studies to a more realistic level

Recommendation 18

that Colleges collaborate with the Board of Graduate Studies to protect self-funding students from currency depreciation, by collecting fees for the whole year at the start of the course

Recommendation 19

that Colleges collaborate with the Board of Graduate Studies to identify students whose financial means are found to be inadequate shortly after the start of the course, so that they can be properly advised on their options (including leaving Cambridge) before debt is incurred

Ensuring language competence

Recommendation 20

that the University explore with Cambridge Assessment the possibility of a language test which meets the University's needs more closely than the current IELTS or TOEFL tests

Recommendation 21

that Faculties and Departments consider means - such as interviewing by telephone or video-conference and/or assessment of written work - of reinforcing the minimum University-wide criteria for ensuring English-language competence in the candidates for graduate study whom they admit; and that the Board of Graduate Studies receive the support of Faculties and Departments in enforcing, in every case, publicized English-language requirements for admission

Recommendation 22

that Departments and Faculties ensure that staff participating in selection of graduate students are fully competent to do so; that they interview in English; and that they include an assessment of English-language competence in their recommendation for acceptance or rejection

Recommendation 23

that students who are admitted having met the University and course English-language requirements, and are later found to require a remedial English course, should be entitled to a place on such a course, operated by the Language Centre

Recommendation 24

that the University should invest more central resources to enable the Language Centre to offer the EAP programme to the students who need it, irrespective of the students' or their Colleges' ability to pay

Colleges and pastoral support

Recommendation 25

that, as per Recommendation 6(iv) of the Colleges' Working Group on Graduate Numbers and Provision, the Graduate Tutors' Committee give consideration to the existing mechanisms for College selection of graduate students, reporting to the Board of Graduate Studies and the Senior Tutors' Committee

Recommendation 26

that, as per Recommendation 7 of the Colleges' Working Group on Graduate Numbers and Provision, an inter-college framework of agreement be established on graduate numbers, so as to maintain the Colleges' shared interest in good graduate provision within meaningful College communities

Recommendation 27

that the Colleges collectively formulate a common statement on the circumstances in which a student may be asked to withdraw for financial reasons, in the event that evidence of financial means proves unreliable

Recommendation 28

that Colleges explore with the University Finance Division the costs of insuring against the financial consequences to the College of the death or serious injury of an international student

Recommendation 29

that the Graduate Tutors' Committee encourage the establishment of a regular forum for Graduate Tutors' secretaries

Recommendation 30

that Colleges and Faculties give consideration to the implications for their activities of a small central International Office, and develop with the Office ways of working synergistically

Recommendation 31

that the International Office take the lead, in consultation with University institutions and the Colleges, in devising a substantial induction and orientation programme, lasting throughout the academical year, and with residence beginning at least a week before the start of the Michaelmas Term; and that the International Office, Colleges, Faculties, and Departments collectively establish a common understanding of conventions for the use of new students' time in the initial weeks of the academical year

Study abroad and exchange schemes

Recommendation 32

that the University and Colleges focus on the study abroad schemes likely to bring the most benefits, and develop expertise and procedures in those particular schemes such that, at local level, the activity becomes routine and well understood by all parties

Recommendation 33

that the establishment of new substantial study abroad schemes should be driven by academic priorities judged at Faculty level, and funded through the RAM, with non-recurrent central grants available as seed corn funding

Recommendation 34

that Colleges individually consider whether they wish to accept incoming students on the double maîtrise scheme, according to the academic and pastoral counselling resources available to them, and then work with the Law Faculty and with the International Office to build the capacity to manage incoming and outgoing students on the schemes

Recommendation 35

that the University seek benefactions to enhance Vacation Scholarships and extend the model to countries outside Europe

Annex I

Working Party on International Student Recruitment, Selection and Support

Chair
Professor M. C. McKendrickPro-Vice-Chancellor (Education)
Membership
Professor J. S. BellMember, General Board
Chair, Council of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences 2005-06
Dr A. L. R. FindlaySenior Tutor, Churchill College
Chair, Graduate Tutors' Committee
Dr L. E. FridaySecretary, Board of Graduate Studies
Dr D.A. GoodProgramme Director (Education), Cambridge-MIT Institute
Mr D. P. F. McCallumDeputy Academic Secretary
(Secretary, Working Party on International Academic Relationships)
Dr R. O'HanlonSenior Tutor, Clare College;
Associate Secretary, Senior Tutors' Committee
Dr K. B. PrettyPro-Vice-Chancellor (Special Responsibilities)
(Chair, Working Party on International Academic Relationships)
Professor J. K. M. SandersHead of the Department of Chemistry
Mr W. Streeting (to July 2005)President, CUSU
Mr M. N. H. MossSecretary

Terms of Reference

The Working Party will consider the following questions, having regard to the responsibilities of both the University and the Colleges:

  1. What are the benefits of including international students within the student body? Do these benefits differ with the level of study?
  2. Should there be an upper limit to the proportion of international students at each or any level of study?
  3. Should we actively recruit international students? If so, what countries, regions, and levels of study should we focus on?
  4. Should we actively provide opportunities for Cambridge degree students to study abroad?
  5. What resources and infrastructure would be necessary if we increased activity in international student recruitment or support, or study abroad opportunities?
  6. Any other matter which the Working Party considers relevant

The Working Party will make its recommendations to the Council, the General Board, and the Colleges, as appropriate.

Annex II

Working Party on International Student Recruitment, Selection and Support

The Working Party had the benefit of contributions from:

Professor W. BrownMaster of Darwin
Chair, Board of Graduate Studies
Ms N. CavaleriDirector, English for Academic Purposes programme,
Language Centre
Mr G. ChestermanDirector, Careers Service
Professor J. CrawfordChair, Faculty of Law
Ms J. GrahamHead, Cambridge Admissions Office
Dr D. JarvisSenior Tutor, Wolfson College
Mrs J. JeskyDisability Resource Centre
Dr J. KeelerChairman, Teaching Committee of the Department of Chemistry
Professor A. C. MinsonPro-Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Resources)
Mr M. PhippenDirector, Counselling Service
Dr A. SealDirector, Cambridge Overseas Trust
Dr C. ZähnerDeputy Director, Language Centre

1 Throughout this report, 'international students' is intended to encompass all non-UK students, by citizenship or residence — including citizens of other European Union countries. When reference is made to students paying the overseas fee rate, this is made clear.

2 The Global Value of Education and Training Exports to the UK Economy (April 2004 study for the British Council and UKTI by Professor G. Johnes of Lancaster University): http://www.britishcouncil.org/global-value-of-education-andtraining-exports-to-the-uk-economy.pdf

3 The Cambridge Scholarship Trusts receive currently £2.8m a year directly from the University Chest.

4 Most 'scheme' awards have been established as a collaboration with external bodies, including agencies of Government — for example through the Overseas Research Scholarships scheme — and corporate donors.