For more than a decade, I created and managed international pathway programs for colleges in North America. These programs comprise partnerships between for-profit international education companies and not-for-profit colleges that wish to build their brands abroad, attract foreign students to their campuses, ensure foreign-student success, and make money. The pathway program is delivered on the campus and managed by the two parties.
I learned a lot when my companies were forging partnerships with a wide array of colleges from 2005 to 2016, and I thought that those of you on the academic side who may be contemplating starting, revising, or even folding a pathway program might appreciate a look into the sometimes obscure and complicated transactions involved in the process. Here are some questions to consider and hard truths to accept.
What are your priorities for pathways? Greater diversity? Improved student outcomes? Money? Most likely all of them, but what’s the major driver? Given the financial challenges facing higher-education institutions, there is no shame in admitting (at least privately) that money is key. If that’s the case, then your negotiation strategy with a pathway partner should be focused on the volume of students and on economics, rather than on “that’s how we do it here” processes that run counter to the primary goal.
Given the financial challenges facing colleges, there is no shame in acknowledging that money is a key priority.
If diversity is the top priority, then you need to fight for firm commitments from your partner about what it’s going to do in harder markets (Brazil) versus easier markets (China). If you care most about student outcomes, then you should emphasize curriculum and retention tools like support services and make sure your provider has a stellar track record on progression during the pathway program and from pathway to degree. If both sides are transparent and truthful about expectations, you will avoid headaches later on.
Have you done your homework? I’m frequently surprised that some institutions gravitate to one provider or another without thoroughly vetting that provider as well as other options. I know several public and private institutions that signed 10- to 25-year deals without serious consideration of alternatives. Unless such lengthy deals have clear performance clauses and other “out” options, avoid them. Remember how hard it is to anticipate your operating environment and goals five years from now, let alone 25. Even if a preferred provider comes highly recommended, there is zero to lose and much to gain by talking directly with other providers. At the very least, some leverage gets built for the negotiating process.
Will admissions standards be lowered? The cliché about the difference between higher education and the commercial sector is that the former is focused on inputs (qualifications) and the latter cares more about outputs (results). I saw this often when discussing pathways admissions criteria with university administrators.
The institutions with which I’ve collaborated are strong academically and pride themselves on selectivity, so it’s not surprising that they would resist lower standards for pathways students (which is a bit disingenuous, as standards for domestic transfer students are often lower than for incoming freshmen). However, pathway programs function more as an internal on-campus transfer pipeline (taught by college faculty members), so that if, at the end of the program, students meet the progression criteria stipulated by the college, then and only then are they allowed to progress from pathway toward their degrees.
Whom are you working with in the private sector? When evaluating a pathway provider, spend more time understanding the intricacies of how the provider operates than being wooed by a smart, charming personality during the courtship phase. After the deal is done, your team will spend far less time with that individual than with those who make the program run day after day.
Who are the recruiters interacting with students? Every pathway provider is dependent on an agent network to find students. Nearly all agents are independent and nonexclusive; they represent more than one pathway provider and, therefore, several institutions. They also often represent a longer list of colleges for direct recruitment. Controversy has swirled around agents, but the reality is that in any service profession, you have a bell-shaped curve: A handful are dreadful, a handful walk on water, and the majority are in the middle.
Consequently, what matters most is how well the pathway provider manages its network. Have you asked how it will meet your recruitment goals if a direct competitor pays a higher commission? How many agents, and from which countries, will visit your campus in the coming year? What will you do to hold agents to high standards after they’ve signed your code of conduct?
Is my brand at risk if I partner with a pathway provider? In theory, yes, since by definition you’re going to have to yield some control for the partnership to be successful. But much of the risk can be mitigated contractually. When I think back to events over the past 10 years, far more damage has been done to institutions’ images by violence on campus than as a result of pathway partnerships.
Have you considered other options? There are a lot of ways to leverage the private sector to build your brand abroad and attract more foreign students: direct recruitment via third parties, ESL programs on and off campus, marketing to first-generation students in your region, and so on.
Pathway programs are complex to manage, with many moving parts and impacts on many campus departments — admissions, provost, registrar, student life, finance. Now layer in an international pathway program with a third party. If a key department in this ecosystem doesn’t deliver on its commitments (clear admission criteria, for example), it could block your college from reaching its goals. To make pathways work, a senior administrator with political capital is necessary to herd the cats.
By now, you might have concluded that you should drop the pathways idea. That may be a mistake, because when pathway programs work well, they bring valuable benefits to the student, the college, and the pathway provider.
However, pathway programs are not the best solution for every institution. You need to go into them with your eyes open and be honest about your motivations and strengths and humble about your weaknesses. The best pathway providers will do the same.
Larry Green is an adviser to senior executives in higher education. Previously he was an executive with Kaplan International, Study Group, and the Boston Consulting Group.
