Unexpected perils of a tougher visa regime

Posted by Linda Anderson on Sep 25 16:48.

By Kai Peters

Suffering a terrorist outrage as I go about my daily business is not on my to-do list and you would think I would welcome any measures implemented to prevent terrorism.

However, in one specific area I do not. Instead, I find myself increasingly aggravated by well intentioned but poorly executed initiatives that produce draconian legislation aimed at long-tail risk.

The full fallout will be felt across the educational sector in the UK in the coming month, at great expense to a university sector struggling from funding shortages and recent, breathtaking 8 per cent pay settlements. For October is student inventory season when incoming students and especially non-EU students, are counted. Volume equals funding and it does not look good.

Historically, the system for non-European Union students requiring visas to come to study in the UK was benevolent and generally welcoming. Given that more than 250,000 non-EU students formed about 15 per cent of the student body and contributed upwards of a third of university funding, international education was held up as a real strength of the nation.

Not only did these students contribute £8bn-£13bn (estimates vary) to the economy, they also brought different experience and views into the classroom and helped UK students understand a globalised world.

In business schools, reliance on international students is even greater. At Masters level and above, having a 70-80 per cent international class was not uncommon.

But that was before the terrorist attacks came. In the US and the UK, individuals implicated in the attacks and in subsequent plots had been on student visas (half a dozen, a dozen?) for everything from language schools to private schools and from further education colleges through to universities.

So the well intentioned, kneejerk crackdown came. A new regime for student visas has been piloted in the course of 2009 and is now in full force. To enter the UK, students need to have sufficient funds for their course 28 days before they apply, have £600 for each month of study and an additional £400 per dependent – all in a bank account in their name. They also need biometric identity cards, visas and impeccable spelling on their visa forms. Forms for visa extensions run to more than 50 pages, not only for the student but also for each dependent. And did I mention that the procedure for academic staff is not dissimilar?

At my school, we had a preview of the new regime with an intake at the beginning of 2009. A candidate for the full-time MBA was rejected because he was not working, a common problem as banks and other organisations lay off staff. Another was rejected even though the fees had been paid. We do not know why. Overall, 15 per cent of admitted candidates were affected, with Russian, African and Indian candidates to Ashridge suffering most.

Since then, with the UK’s Association of Business Schools, we have been compiling a list of experiences and have been in extensive touch with the government. Unclear rules keep changing to create more unclear rules, with internship rules particularly unclear.

Unsurprisingly, potential students are feeling unwelcome. Nigerian applications to the UK
are down from 3,092 between April and June 2008 to 133 in the same period in 2009.

Expectations are currently running at a 20 per cent refusal rate across the sector and schools are over-admitting to compensate.

The Home Office, while saying this is in the best interest of national security and that the “government will continue to welcome students who wish to receive a first-rate education but they must first prove they are legitimate”, does not answer the phones when contacted with queries and appeals. Politicians we contacted were unaware there was a way of differentiating universities from fly-by- night private language schools.

It is a dog’s breakfast – cold and bitter.

Kai Peters is the chief executive of Ashridge Business School