List of Professors - University of Leeds



International education and the Pakistani diaspora

Diana Leonard and Maryam Rab

Institute of Education, University of London and

Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi

Paper presented at the Multidisciplinary International Conference on Qualitative Research in Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges, University of Karachi, 3-4 November 2006

From the 18th century Grand Tour of Europe, to 1960s visits to ashrams in the Indian sub-continent and recent gap years abroad, students from the West have set off to other lands to continue or complete their education. Traditionally, overseas travel itself has been thought to have intrinsic educational value…(Leonard and Morley, 2003: 1)

Since its establishment in 2002, the HEC has undertaken a number of initiatives .. aimed at raising the number of highly qualified PhDs in the country. … The short-term faculty hiring program targets Pakistani nationals with postdoctorate foreign experience who are likely to return for at least one semester… The Reverse Brain Drain Program targets expatriate Pakistanis with postdoctorate foreign experience who intend to return to Pakistan for two or more months… focused on applicants in agriculture and engineering. …. Over the longer term, the HEC is endeavoring to lift the capability of the HE sector in Pakistan through the creation of indigenous and overseas scholarship programs at both the post-graduate and PhD levels. (World Bank 2006: paragraphs 76-78)

One of the fast growing areas of educational research concerns the influence of globalization on higher education. Within this broad field, the authors share a common interest in the effects of ‘international education’ – or, more specifically, the variety of activities that take place across nation states (CVCP/HEFCE 2000) -on postgraduate qualifications, professional development and individual identity.[1]

We became interested in working together, as a Pakistani and a British researcher, to try to counter the continued prioritising of western concerns and interpretations in both quantitative and qualitative research relating to non-Western countries (Lugones and Spelman 1992; Tong 2000): ‘united by shared interests and beliefs, united in our appreciation for diversity [and] united in our struggle to try to end sexist oppression’ (hooks 1984).

We are concentrating on Pakistan as a medium income country with South Asian, British and Islamic traditions. It therefore provides an interesting contrast to much work on ‘international’ students in the UK, which either does not differentiate at all among international students by country of origin; or inappropriately homogenizes groups (for instance, talking of ‘Asian’ students as a block and assuming they all have a Confucian educational tradition); or looks principally at students from emerging economies such as China, India and Malaysia. Virtually none (that we know of) considers Muslim students.

The global market in higher education

The last thirty years have seen major changes to the higher education systems of most countries and to the role universities play within national economies. Highly educated and skilled workforces are seen as essential to raising national incomes, and university research and the creative application of findings are essential in order to compete internationally in what is often referred to as the global ‘knowledge economy’ (see the World Bank Report referred to at the start). Also, education itself has become marketised:

[The UK, for instance, has] moved from an earlier perspective of encouraging students from abroad to study in the UK as a form of colonial or postcolonial aid and encouragement of trade (in goods or ideas) to a position which sees education more as a directly saleable commodity.’ (Leonard and Morley, 2003: 1)

From the 1980s, UK universities have sought to increase their recruitment of students from abroad and in particular from outside the European Union. The UK government has declared a policy to obtain a 25% share in what is now seen as the international education industry, and this policy was ‘spearheaded’ by the Education UK promotional campaign (British Council 1999)

The UK is of course not alone in competing for students who wish to study in English. Australia is distinctly up and coming, and the US (and to a lesser extent the Canadian) HE systems are long established overseas students destinations.

Education is Australia's 5th highest source of foreign exchange earnings (estimated at £950 million in 1995 and A$ 2 billion in 2000 - 2 per cent of GDP). It provides 25 per cent of the operating revenue of the top enrolling universities. The 37 universities’ brochures have helped to transform its image from a slightly dreary colonial outpost to a dazzling, middle class, beach society with the Anglo-Asian flavour of California. They use Asian born alumni to promote Australia as a safe, clean, English speaking country, close to and in the same time zone as South Asia. More directly, universities use overseas agents in these countries who are paid a Aus$1000-2500 commission on each student enrolled and there have been bribes accepted for students to go to particular institutions (Langmead 1998).

In the UK, ‘overseas’ students[2] have paid ‘full-cost’ fees[3] since 1979 (three times as high as ‘home’ students). But most significantly for the universities, international students numbers are not controlled by the government. So a university can increase the income generated by its existing fixed costs for a small additional variable cost if it can recruit more international students – and higher education is chronically under-funded. The numbers of non-British students in the UK have therefore risen from around 10,000 in 1963 (Robbins Report) to 318,400 in 2004-05 (including 100,005 from other parts of the EU); and universities now have specialist international offices concerned with marketing and recruitment. Nearly two-thirds of the international students in the UK are postgraduates (HESA 2006 Table 6a)

Pakistan ranks only 35th among the countries sending foreign students to OECD countries overall. So they are often not distinguished in international figures (e.g. in the UNESCO annual report Education at a Glance). But in the UK, Pakistan domiciled students ranked 11th among overseas students in 2004/05 (N = 6,645) and their numbers are rising fast.[4] Here again two-thirds are studying at postgraduate level, though Pakistani postgraduate numbers in the UK (N = 4,140[5]) are dwarfed by the 28,170 postgraduates from China, 12,775 from India and 12,735 from Greece.

Beginning research

We started by contacting some of the growing numbers of Pakistanis who have studied abroad and returned home, to explore the use they have subsequently made of their experiences and their qualifications. We have tried to gather and analyse interview data jointly, despite the difficulties of being for much of the time in separate countries.

In developing this into a broader study of alumni, our preference is for the general approach Holliday commended in his address to the conference (Holliday 2006). That is to say, we want to explore complex data in depth in specific contexts, letting themes emerge to see what is important, and being reflexive about, rather than trying to minimize, our own impact on the situation as researchers. We always examine critically the categories the individuals concerned use as they tell us their stories, and also those employed by policy-makers, by institutions in their publicity materials, and by (ourselves and others as) researchers. We seek (as Holliday emphasised) to note multiple perspectives and moments rather than trying to ‘triangulate’ accounts in order to get at the truth of what is really happening.

However, we do not regard research as either ‘qualitative’ or ‘quantitative’. Rather we believe it is often desirable to combine the two (Fielding and Fielding 1986; Bryman 1988; Brannen 1992). Indeed, we agree that it is sometimes impossible to draw a dividing line between the two: many supposed differences crumble on closer inspection (Hammersley 1992). We prefer rather to define our approach as drawing on interpretivism, post-structuralism and structuralism, and in opposition to a would-be scientific, positivist (experimental, hypothesis-testing survey) approach. We recognise that differences between these three epistemologies may themselves generate different questions and suggest different methods, and that this may produce answers which are not compatible. But for us this enriches insight into the problems we face, rather than constituting a problem (see Bryman 1988).

Initial Work

We have so far conducted just seven exploratory interviews with individuals who studied in the UK and returned to Pakistan within the last five years. These were lightly structured conversations and lasted 1-2 hours. We contacted these people by snowball sampling, and, even though small scale, this has produced some interesting findings. It shows clear differences between what concerns most UK-based researchers[6] and these Pakistani former students.

|UK student welfare concerns (taken from the suggested |Our informants’ concerns before arriving and while in the UK |

|topics to be covered in orientation programmes, UKCOSA | |

|1998) | |

|Individual adaptation to travel |Extended family reaction to study abroad |

|Culture shock and homesickness in the UK |Choice of university |

|Language |‘Academic shock’: treatment by the university/ in seminars/ tutorials (but|

|Learning styles |not general cultural shock since most had prior experience of Britain) |

| |Comportment while in the UK - here gender is a central issue |

| |Being seen constantly to represent Islam |

| |Relations with British Pakistanis |

| |Finances: funding and jobs in the UK |

Most of the themes on the right would not have emerged in questionnaires designed by UK nationals because they would not have asked about them. Nor might the major differences in the freedom and leisure activities of Pakistani men and women in the UK have emerged, though these struck us forcefully (as women). Similarly, we found Pakistani students had different concerns on return home than are advised in briefings for those leaving the UK and by the few existing studies of return to other countries. [7]

Sampling

We were aware that the group we have met so far might well be biased, and that if we were to continue to take easily accessible contacts, we would probably get skewed results, from which we would be unable to generalize. And even though we are doing an in-depth piece of research, we do want to be able to generalize: to be able to say that our findings apply beyond the particular collection of individuals, to Pakistani students more generally. We also want to be able to give some measure of frequency, at least to the extent of saying ‘most do this’ or ‘60% do that’.

We therefore purchased a dataset on the postgraduate Pakistani students in the UK in 2004-05 from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). This is based on returns which each university is required to make annually.[8] The data show that the great majority (87%) of Pakistanis studying in the UK are men. Roughly a quarter of these men study business and administrative studies, a quarter computer science, and a quarter engineering and technology, with a further tenth studying law. The much smaller numbers of women also study mainly business and administrative studies (at Masters level), but otherwise they focus on education, social, economic and political studies, computer studies, and some biological sciences at doctoral level.

The people we had contacted by snowballing comprise:

3 men and 4 women (2 men and 1 woman were married)

5 had gained a Masters degree in the UK, 1 an LLB, and 1 a PhD.

They went to the UK to study: education and international development, human rights, law, international relations, clinical psychology and business studies (2).

Our initial sample is indeed therefore far from typical in terms of both gender and subject area. We shall therefore need to decide if we will try to get a more representative sample (possibly working with one of the big commercial companies which advise on marketing), or if we will specifically chose to select some interesting contrasting cases.

Emerging issues

The choice of university

The HESA statistics show in which universities students are studying and, here again, it is clear that the individuals we have met so far are untypical. They have attended a very different set of UK universities from Pakistani students in general.

We asked, as a general opening question in our interview, ‘how did you come to study in the UK?’ And as with most qualitative data, the responses are interesting, complex and varied:

Student 1

Frankly, I did not have much knowledge about the UK and its universities while starting. So, knowing all that, not having many knowledge, I said ‘Okay’ [when a friend who works for the British Council mentioned a scholarship]. And then I went to the British Council and I asked them - that I heard that there is a Cambridge scholarship open; and I got the forms from there. And there was a lady who told me ‘where would you like to apply and why do you not apply to other universities?’ and like a [?unclear] student, I said ‘I want to get in the top university. And if I’m top here, I want to go to your top University.’ So, she said ‘Okay, but why are you putting all your eggs in one basket?’; and ‘I do not know, sometimes young people are little bit silly in their heart.’ I said ‘No. If it is fate, it has to be. I will go there. Otherwise I will think about it.’ So, I only got one form, of Cambridge University, and I came back, filled it up, got my grades and sent it to the University, and frankly forgot about that.

Student 2

Why [did you go to Cardiff University]?

I wanted to go a smaller town.

You did?

Yes. I might have gone to Hull or [economics at] Manchester, Cardiff, Hull, Sussex. I could not get into Warwick. Warwick [business school] was my top priority.

Right.

Because my father had been to Warwick, so I …. and he loved Coventry, and so he was always talking about Coventry. But I could not get in…. They refused. They said you applied late. I applied in May and I wanted to leave in September. I applied a little late. They said we can accept you next year, but I thought, no I should leave in 2002. So, Cardiff - was because of a smaller town, that is the reason. I did not want to go to London, Manchester or Birmingham.

These two quotations suggest some students have just a general idea of the system they are entering and leave decisions to fate (and it is not untypically a woman speaking); while others have a clear sense of direction, time-frame and sense of the possible alternatives.

But just looking at these responses can get us only so far. We would have to do a great many to pick up the marked pattern shown by the HESA data:

|UK universities attended by our existing informants |UK universities with 100+ Pakistan domiciled students |

|London Metropolitan – 1 |Middlesex - 306 students |

|Cambridge - 1 |London Metropolitan - 250 |

|Cardiff 1 |Manchester - 168 |

|Gray’s Inn[9] 1 |East London - 135 |

|Reading 1 |Bradford - 125 |

|Tavistock Centre[10] |Greenwich - 114 |

|University of London, Institute of Education |South Bank - 106 |

| |Sunderland – 104 |

This suggests we need not only to adjust our selection procedure to ensure we cast our net more representatively, but more importantly, to note that our informants so far have generally been to a more prestigious group of universities than Pakistanis studying in the UK in general. Three of our pilot group had been to specialized elite HEIs and three others to institutions rated 1st, 16th and 31st in TheTimes Good University Guide 2007. [11] However, most Pakistanis attend much lower ranked HEIs: its true Manchester is ranked 26th and Bradford 47th (out of 109), in the Times Guide, but Sunderland is 92nd, East London 93rd, Middlesex 96th, South Bank 101st and Greenwich 106th while London Metropolitan is unplaced as it refused to supply certain information. (London Met was attended by one of our informants – recommended to us as an example of someone who had had a difficult time in the UK.)

The dataset also suggests there is a marked clustering of Pakistani students in certain universities: they are not evenly spread. How this comes about needs to be investigated. How and why did they choose these locations and how was their experience different (if at all) from those at high ranking universities? (We are not suggesting it was necessarily worse, since there is a bias towards research in the Times’s listing and teaching or the attention given to research students may be better elsewhere.) Did they realize there is a hierarchy among British universities? Did they know about the publicly available quality assurance materials on individual universities (as opposed to the universities’ own promotional materials)? And do employers in Pakistan use the prestige of the particular university when selecting future employees?

We will therefore select a group from the most prestigious universities and compare with two other groups which have studied, say, business studies and engineering in those universities which were formerly polytechnics. We will also delve deeper during future interviews into how students came to choose their university. Since there is virtually no research on overseas students choice of particular universities in the UK – the little there is looks at why they chose the UK over other countries (e.g. British Council 1999) - we shall certainly need to add some extra interviews with the key gatekeepers/brokers involved in framing potential students’ views (e.g. the British Council’s Education Counselling Service (see Sidhu (2002)) and the overseas offices of particular universities.

That is to say, the HESA quantitative data have opened up a new topic for us to study in depth: the influence of marketing agents and universities’ admissions procedures on different groups of students’ choices.

Given most UK HEIs enthusiasm for international students, we want to understand why the Pakistani postgraduates are not more evenly spread across the UK, and/or why, when they and their families are paying considerable sums of money to get a British postgraduate degree, they are not selecting/being accepted into the best research universities. Also, as noted, whether this matters at postgraduate level, and especially at doctoral, level on their return to Pakistan.

Networks and gender

Other emergent areas of interest have, of course also arisen from our own qualitative data – not only from the interviews but also from our participant observation in a Pakistan university, within the British Council (where Maryam Rabb is an Alumni Association officer), and while we have been conducting interviews. For instance:

• That many people in higher education not only know each other as colleagues but are also friends with each other and/or relatives – and information is rapidly passed across networks. This has alerted us to a specific need for discretion and not passing on information ourselves, but also that it would be worth following up some of the network(s) of those who studied in the UK, and their connections on return, especially as these tie into the HE system if any. (This seems reminiscent of the ties between ANC members who studied in the UK and then returned to South Africa, see (Unterhalter and Maxey 1995).)

• We realised how much information (and pleasure in interaction) we, as women, get from interacting with the women we interviewed, and our empathy with the series of dilemmas they see themselves confronting. But we also realized what we haven’t got from the men, despite their willingess to be interviewed - and hence the need perhaps to employ a young man to do some men’s focus groups in our final study.

Conclusion

In this short paper, we have stressed the advantages of combining quantitative and qualitative data, while being constructively critical of both. The terms ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ do obviously represent distinctive approaches to social research (each with its cluster of methods), and certain epistemological and theoretical positions have influenced the character of the two types. But that is not to say that each approach is forever rooted in its original epistemological position, and each has its strengths. It is therefore worth considering combining, if not necessarily integrating, them. Especially, as Brown and Dowling argue, because using a dual approach can help overcome ‘naive empiricism’ - any hiding behind the method (imagining using statistics in itself will guarantee the value of the work; or substituting captivating narrative for analysis in qualitative work). Hence dual techniques can encourage the crucial area of theoretical development.

‘The qualitative imagination will tend to demand that quantitative analysis explains itself in terms of the non-statistical concepts that it is claiming to measure. The quantitative imagination will demand a degree of precision in definition that qualitative work may slide away from. It is our position… that the best option will always be a dialogical use of a combination of qualitative and quantitative method.’ (Brown and Dowling 1998)83)

Our starting point was how individuals construct their careers in employment and the family, and their ‘travelling identities’, in the context of situational and ideological resources. We drew on intensive interviews, with a group of individuals talking at length and according to their own definitions, and we analysed each interview in its entirety.

In constructing the interview schedule and in analyzing the data, we are drawing upon current understandings of the effects of globalization and internationalization on HE and professional training in the two countries (Marginson 1997; Currie and Newson 1998; Altbach 2003), and discussions of brain drain/export/gain (Rizvi 2005; Tremblay 2005).

We are also looking at the experience and changing sense of identity of individual travelling students, using various accounts seeking to understand the changes to international relationships and individual identities resulting from globalization and postcolonial relationships, migration and settlement, through the personal, cultural and intellectual worlds of the traveler, and especially the fluidity of identities associated with masculinities and femininities (Rizvi 2005; Bullen and Kenway 2003; Kenway and Bullen 2003; Tremblay 2005).

We have used ourselves as research instrumemnts, attending to our own cultural assumptions as well as the data, trying to be flexible and reflexive, while maintaining some distance.

We stressed that we are concerned with ensuring we had a reasonably representative sample of UK alumni in Pakistan, even for a qualitative study, because we want to be able to draw some tentative generalizations. (We would argue most qualitative researchers do actually do this, even when neither their sample nor their theoretical framework allows it.) So we sought secondary quantitative data, from an annual survey of HEIs, to investigate the nature of the population and the incidence of particular groups of interest within the general population.

This quantitative data in turn suggested not only the basis for theoretical sampling – groups strategically drawn to maximize theoretical differences or similarities – but also various further areas for qualitative exploration. These in turn may, at some point, lead on to a quantitative study to test the generality of the findings and suggested relationships.

References

Altbach, P. G. (2003). 'Centers and peripheries in the academic profession: the special challenges of developing countries'. The decline of the Guru: the academic profession in developing and middle income countries. P. Altbach, Palgrave Macmillan.

Brannen, J., Ed. (1992). Mixing Methods: qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot, Avebury.

British Council (1999). The Brand Report.

Brown, A. and P. Dowling (1998). Doing Research/Reading Research: a mode of interrogation for education. London, Falmer Press.

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London, Unwin Hyman.

Bullen, E. and J. Kenway (2003). "Real or imagined women? Staff representations of international women students." Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 24(1): 35-50.

Currie, J. and J. Newson, Eds. (1998). Universities and Globalization: critical perspectives. London, Sage.

CVCP/HEFCE (2000). The Business of Borderless Education: analysis and recommendations. London, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of universities of the UK.

Fielding, N. G. and J. L. Fielding, Eds. (1986). Linking Data. London and Newbury Park, Sage.

Guo, Y. (1998). "'The roles of returned foreign-education students in Chinese higher education'." Journal of Studies in International Education(Fall): 35-58.

Hammersley, M. (1992). 'Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide'. Mixing Methods: qualitative and quantative research. J. Brannen. Aldershot, Avebury.

hooks, b. (1984). Feminist Theory: from margin to centre. Boston, South End Press.

Kenway, J. and E. Bullen (2003). "Self-representations of international women postgraduate students in the global university ‘contact zone’." Gender and Education 15(1): 5-20.

Langmead, D. (1998). Selling Australian Postgraduate Education Overseas - in whose interests? Independent project. Deakin University

Leonard, D. (2001). A Woman's Guide to Doctoral Studies. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Leonard, D., R. Becker, et al. (2004). "Continuing professional and career development: the doctoral experience of education alumni at a UK university." Studies in Continuing Education 26(3): 369-385.

Leonard, D., R. Becker, et al. (2005). "‘To prove myself at the highest level’: the benefits of doctoral study." Higher Education Research and Development 24(2): 135-150.

Leonard, D., L. Morley, et al. (2003). The experiences of international students in UK higher education: a review of unpublished research. London, UKCOSA: The council for International Education.

Lugones, M. and E. Spelman (1992). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for 'the woman's voice. Feminist Philosophies. J. A. Kourany, J. P. Sterba and R. Tong. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Marginson, S. (1997). Markets in Education. St Leonards, NSW, Allen and Unwin.

Mohanty, C. T. (2003). "'"Under Western Eyes" revisited: feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles'." Signs: Journal of women in Culture and Society 25(3): 649-675.

Raeside, R. and e. al. (2006). "Recounting the scores: an analysis of the QAA subject review grades 1995-2001." Quality in Higher education.

Rizvi, F. (2005a). International education and the production of cosmopolitan identities. Globalization and Higher Education. A. Arimoto, F. Huang and K. Yokoyama. Hagishi-Hiroshima, Research Institute for Higher Education Hiroshima University.

Rizvi, F. (2005b). "'Rethinking "Brain Drain" in the era of globalisation'." Asia Pacific Journal of Education 25(2): 175-192.

Sidhu, R. (2002). "Educational brokers in global education markets." Journal of Studies in International Education 6(1): 16-43.

Tong, R. P. (2000). Multicultural and global feminism. Women in Higher Education: feminist perspective. J. Glazer-Raymo, B. K. Townsend and B. Ropers-Huliman. Boston, Pearson Custom Publishing.

Tremblay, K. (2005). "Academic mobility and immigration." Journal of International Education 9(3): 196-228.

UKCOSA (1998). New approaches to orientation, UKCOSA Training. London, 7 May.

UKCOSA (n.d.) Homeward Bound: a pack for tutors organising courses for students returning to their home countries after studying in the UK, London: UKCOSA: the UK Council for Overseas Student Affairs

Unterhalter, E. and K. Maxey (1995). Educating South Africans in Britain and Ireland: a review of thirty years of sponsorhip by the Africa Educational Trust. London, RESA, Institute of Education, University of London.

World Bank (2006). Higher Education Policy Note: Pakistan: An Assessment of the Medium-Term Development Framework

.

-----------------------

[1] Following her own Masters studies in the UK and as part of her doctoral studies at the Institute of Education, University of London, Maryam Rab has been looking at various ‘link’ schemes between a Pakistani university and the UK, and the effects these have had on staff thinking and student learning.

Diana Leonard has previously written on women and doctoral studies (2001) and an overview of research on international students (Leonard et al. 2003) as well as conducting a follow-up study of the alumni who obtained their doctorates at the Institute of Education in 1992, 1997 and 2002 (Leonard et al. 2004 and 2005).

[2] International (non-UK) students are divided into ‘Other European Union countries’ and ‘overseas’ because they pay different fees.

[3] That is to say, they pay fees which cover their full cost to the universities. The Funding Councils, which distribute government money to UK universities, pay part of the fees of all EU students but do not make any contribution for the costs of non-EU students.

[4] Up from 1990 in 2000-01, 2625 in 2001-02 and 4380 in 2003-04.

[5] of which 595 research degrees

[6] There is remarkably little research in the UK on international students with which to compare our findings (let alone research on alumni who have completed their studies and returned home). This is in contrast to considerably more attention given to overseas students in the US and Australia. Despite their importance to the intellectual and financial health of UK higher education’s (see on), very little research on international students’ has been funded either by central government or by the quasi-governmental Research Councils in the last twenty years. What there is, is largely marketing related (e.g. Hobsons’ Global Review How Students Make Decisions, 2006) and difficult to access because it is financially sensitive. Or else it is done by interested parties – by people whose jobs concern international student welfare and academic progress (including those teaching English as Second Language) and these professionals tend to focus on ‘problems’. There are a few more critical studies, by international students themselves (sometimes as doctoral theses), or by activist student associations (e.g. the National Postgraduate Committee) and by feminists (noting the general omission of a gender dimension in other research).

[7] E.g. Unterhalter and Maxey (1995), Rizvi (2005a and 2005b), Guo (1998).

[8] Being based on self-completed return, the figures may well may be subject to errors. We know of no research on this in the UK, but have encountered mis-reporting in our own past research, and ‘in accuracies in the reporting of data by universities in the US has been well documented (Provan and Abercrombie, 2000: p3).

[9] One of the four Inns of Court which admit students wishing to become barristers

[10] Specialist therapeutic mental health training

[11]The whole issue of university rankings, and the different schemes used in different countries, is of course a topic in its own right (see University of Edinburgh - Planning Section Web Site, and Provan and Abercromby 2000). Suffice it to say that these rankings are contested as biased towards ‘old’ universities. and in a reworked/ ‘adjusted’ version of the teaching quality league table for England, Middlesex is in the top ten (Raeside et al. 2006). But it is not a 'top' research university, which probably matters for those doing higher degrees.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download