Foreign
International students take ‘back door’ route into England’s top universities
The “back door” enables international students to enter a year-long foundation course with lower entry grades, then apply for progression onto an undergraduate degree.
The government has responded by commissioning its own investigation. Robert Halfon, minister for higher education, has said he wants to make sure there is a “level playing field” for domestic students.
We believe in experts. We believe knowledge must inform decisions
England’s universities now gain most of their income through tuition fees rather than government grant, and they can charge much higher fees to international students. This is leading to concerns that they are favouring international students through the foundation year route. There has never, though, been a “level playing field” for university entry due to the influence of family background on school results.
Foundation years
The Sunday Times story focused on bridging programmes, which are usually called foundation years in England. These are year-long courses taken after school but before starting an undergraduate degree. They help students improve their academic standing and prepare them for university.
There are foundation years run by independent companies with partnerships and recognition from universities. Russell Group and other English universities also run foundation years themselves, often linked to specific subjects such as medicine and physical sciences. Foundation years are becoming increasingly popular, with the number of entrants increasing from 8,000 to around 70,000 during the last decade.
These courses were initially intended to help two groups of students enter undergraduate degrees. First, English students from less-advantaged backgrounds. These students gain lower grades overall and are more likely to have vocational qualifications designed for progression into work, rather than academic studies.
And second, international students from educational systems with school-leaving qualifications that are not comparable to those in the UK.
For many years, different governments in England have encouraged recruitment of both groups of students. This has included setting targets for the recruitment of under-represented groups and international students, and making changes to higher education and immigration regulations.
By helping less-advantaged students enter university, foundation years increase opportunities and improve the supply of highly skilled graduates. Their attraction of international students also generates tuition fee income for universities and creates connections for trade and diplomacy. These benefits are now being set against perceptions of unfairness, which relate to the use of foundation years by students who have not met the required grades.
Student recruitment
During the last decade, the most selective universities in England have increased their recruitment of domestic students from all backgrounds as well as international students. But this is becoming increasingly difficult due to the level of tuition fees for domestic undergraduates.
The government has increased the maximum fee for domestic students only once in ten years, from £9,000 to £9,250 per year in 2017. In real terms, the fee for each student has reduced by around one quarter in this time.
In contrast, there is no cap on international student fees. These can be over £30,000 per year. There are, therefore, much stronger financial incentives to increase numbers of international rather than domestic students.
The “back door” identified by the Sunday Times involves not only foundation year provision for students with qualifications from other countries, but also international students who have gained UK qualifications through independent schools. These students achieve grades below the published entry requirements, then take a foundation year to meet the standard. Universities are recruiting more students through this route because they rely on them to fund domestic student places.
Is this unfair? Many UK families pay for private schooling and tutoring, and pay for students to re-sit examinations to meet selective university entry requirements. Those from private schools are over twice as likely to enter Russell Group universities as students from the state sector.
And this route leads to influence. Two-thirds of the current UK cabinet attended fee-paying private schools, compared with 7% of the wider population. Research conducted in 2019 found that 87% of cabinet members were Russell Group alumni.
Read more: The public cost of private schools: rising fees and luxury facilities raise questions about charitable status
Notwithstanding this, the perception of unfairness highlighted by the report may be influential. The government wants universities to balance their pursuit of private income from international students with the interests of its own population.
Yet the government now funds only £1,600 of the average £10,200 that English universities receive for each domestic student. This 15% contribution cannot adequately represent the level of public interest in the education of the nation’s young people. A new settlement must, then, be a priority for whichever government is in power by the end of 2024.
A United States federal court has set August 21, 2026, as the deadline for the release of records linked to longstanding allegations concerning Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and U.S. financial accounts associated with him in the 1990s.
The records are being sought in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Aaron Greenspan, which has reportedly been before the federal courts for more than three years.
The documents are understood to be held by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The development followed a reported request by the DOJ for an additional 10 days to comply with an earlier court order requiring the release of the records.
According to Von Batten, a Washington, D.C.-based Republican lobbying firm, Tinubu also joined the DOJ’s request for the extension.
The firm said it obtained a copy of a recent court filing submitted on Tinubu’s behalf and claimed that the Nigerian president formally joined the request just two business days before it became public.
However, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell rejected the request for additional time and directed that the records be released by August 21.
Von Batten said Tinubu’s reported decision to participate in the extension request raised questions about his reasons for seeking more time before the records are made public.
The firm alleged that the delay could potentially be used to lobby U.S. officials over concerns that releasing the documents might affect U.S.-Nigeria relations.
It further speculated that Tinubu could argue that disclosure of the records might affect his cooperation with Washington on counterterrorism and security matters.
The records relate to allegations dating back to the early 1990s, including the 1993 forfeiture of approximately $460,000 connected to accounts associated with Tinubu in a U.S. proceeding involving suspected proceeds of narcotics trafficking.
Tinubu has consistently denied wrongdoing and has rejected allegations linking him personally to drug trafficking.
Von Batten also warned against any attempt by U.S. officials to interfere with the FOIA or judicial process to prevent the records from being released.
The lobbying firm referenced U.S. President Donald Trump’s stated opposition to shielding individuals accused of serious criminal conduct, arguing that the legal process should be allowed to proceed without political interference.
With Judge Howell’s ruling in place, the records are expected to be released on or before August 21, unless further legal action changes the deadline.
The contents of the documents remain unknown, and their release could provide further information about the 1990s forfeiture proceedings and U.S. law-enforcement investigations involving accounts linked to Tinubu.
South Africa’s anti-immigration group, March and March, has announced September 30 as a fresh deadline for undocumented foreigners to leave the country, as it staged a protest outside the Southern African Development Community (SADC) summit in Durban on Monday.
The group marched through central Durban under the theme, “It’s time to fetch your people,” calling on African leaders attending the 46th SADC Summit to take back their citizens living in South Africa without legal documentation.
March and March had earlier led nationwide protests on June 30, demanding tougher government action against undocumented immigration and warning that its campaign would continue until its demands were addressed.
Announcing its latest action, the group said the September 30 deadline would mark the beginning of what it described as the “mother of all protests”, while urging South Africans to assist the police in identifying undocumented foreigners.
The protest took place as the 46th Ordinary SADC Summit of Heads of State and Government got underway in Durban, with leaders from the regional bloc’s 16 member states in attendance.
The demonstration has renewed debate over South Africa’s treatment of foreign nationals, particularly citizens of other African countries.
President Cyril Ramaphosa recently condemned discrimination and violence against foreigners, saying South Africa could not advocate regional integration at the SADC summit while practising exclusion within the country.
The June 30 protests were accompanied by security operations and reports of attacks and looting in some areas, according to police reports cited in the original report.
March and March has continued to demand tougher action against undocumented immigration, while tensions over the treatment of foreign nationals have prompted some African countries to evacuate their citizens from South Africa.
The latest protest has brought the immigration dispute directly to the doorstep of the SADC summit, placing the issue before regional leaders whose citizens are among those affected.
US President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Oman if it “gets in the way” of a US deal with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz, while calling on Tehran to surrender.
Trump made the remarks in an interview with Fox News journalist Trey Yingst, amid ongoing talks between Oman and Iran over future maritime navigation arrangements through the strategic waterway.
“If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the shit out of them,” Trump said, referring to the discussions between Oman and Iran as Washington pursues its own negotiations.
Iranian and Omani officials have been holding talks for weeks, with Iran’s Foreign Ministry saying Monday that both sides were working towards a joint declaration on the strait.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Strait of Hormuz is under US control, despite Iran maintaining an effective blockade that has severely restricted maritime traffic.
On Friday, Trump said he could even declare the Strait of Hormuz part of US territory, prompting Iran to insist that the strategic waterway “will remain Iranian.”
Trump also called on Iran to “put up the white flag of surrender,” according to Yingst.
The Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran to the north and Oman to the south, was previously regarded as an open international waterway and carries a significant share of global energy shipments.
AFP
There has been no known deployment of US ground forces in Iran during the Middle East war, with the exception of a rescue mission in April for a downed American pilot.
Hatami did not provide any details on where or when the killing or capturing of US soldiers was expected to take place.
“Anyone who kills or captures and hands over an invading American military personnel will receive a reward equivalent to $30,000 or 5 billion tomans from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Army,” Hatami said, using an informal unit equivalent to 10,000 Iranian rials.
The war between Tehran and Washington began on February 28 after the United States, joined by Israel, attacked Iran. It was followed by an April ceasefire after nearly 40 days of fighting, and a June framework for peace talks that later collapsed.
Iran and the United States have since traded fire sporadically, with fighting mainly centred in southern Iran and around the Strait of Hormuz.
AFP
-
Crime4 days agoArmy Destroys Three Suspected IPOB/ESN Camps, Kills Three in Anambra
-
Politics5 days agoVote-Buying Allegations Surface Across Osun Ahead of Governorship Election
-
Crime3 days agoBreaking: Knight Attacks Catholic Priest After Mass in Enugu
-
Crime5 days agoJezco Chairman, Joseph Ebere Ezeokafor, Regains Freedom After Ransom Negotiations
-
Politics3 days ago2027 Enugu Guber: NDC’s Odalije Chinyeaka Ohaa Reiterates Power of Electorates to Hire and Fire Leaders
-
News4 days agoBREAKING: Osun 2026: Adeleke In Early Lead as INEC Uploads 903 Polling-Unit Results
-
News4 days agoOsun Guber: Adeleke Sweeps 19 LGAs, Oyebamiji Wins 11
-
Special Report5 days agoHOW ANTI PARTY ACTIVITIES MAY CAUSE APC TWO SENATE SEATS