By Anton John Crace in QS Mid Week Brief — 01 Jul 2026

What would a Burnham government mean for the future of UK higher education?

QS Midweek Brief - July 1, 2026. How does the UK's presumptive PM view education? And what do the rankings tell us about the US?

Welcome! As you will have probably seen, the UK is set to have a new Prime Minister and there is already a presumptive replacement, Andy Burnham. This week in our top story, we explore what that might mean for British higher education. He brings with him experience in the education portfolio (at least in the Shadow Ministry), success in Manchester’s education system, and is consequentially exceptionally popular there. Will that translate on the national stage?

In our second story, we continue our analysis of the 2027 QS World University Rankings, this time asking what it can tell us about the US.

Stay insightful,
Anton John Crace
Editor in Chief, QS Insights Magazine
QS Quacquarelli Symonds

Can Burnham take Manchester's education success national?

By Tim van Gardingen

In brief

Potential UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham aims to take Manchester’s successful regional education model to the national stage.
He prioritises vocational training and industry links, enabling Manchester’s universities to thrive while many UK institutions face cuts.
Success depends on balancing academic and technical paths equally, despite the political challenges of implementing local models nationally.

For the seventh time in a decade, the UK will soon have a new Prime Minister. Sir Keir Starmer, having lasted nearly two years, has left 10 Downing street, following five ill-fated conservative leaders to leave the position since 2016, each struggling to hold support post-Brexit. Almost certain to replace him is Andy Burnham, former mayor of Greater Manchester.

The King of the North, as Burnham’s fans call him, has already shaken up education in his city. He has championed vocational education, linked universities into council decision-making, and wants greater local collaboration between education providers and industry for both employment and innovating.

The next step is to see how that might translate onto the national stage.

The Return of the King (of the North)

As the list of universities announcing lay-offs and cuts to courses grows, Manchester has stood out as being strikingly resilient, even flourishing

Burnham was, until very recently, the hugely popular mayor of Manchester. He won his mayoral seat with 62 percent of the vote in 2017, and his approval rating stands at 65 percent when he left the position on 19 June. It is rare for politicians to remain popular for so long in the UK and even rarer to end more popular than they start.

At the national level, and in stark contrast to Starmer’s approval ratings, Burnham is the only public Labour party figure to be viewed positively overall by the wider public and the most popular among labour voters.

Liberal Democrat and Green party voters, in the centre and to the left, tend to see Burnham positively. Conservative and Reform voters, on the right, meanwhile, see him negatively in general, but a sizeable minority do still view him in a positive light.

The likely new PM is an old face of UK politics, walking the corridors of government since Gordon Brown’s leadership in the early 2000s. He was first a member of the House of Commons in 2001 and has held a series of official posts both in government and opposition.

In government, Burnham held posts in the Department of Health, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Treasury, and the Home Office. In opposition, one of his posts was as Shadow Education Secretary.

Now, after nearly 10 years building his reputation in Manchester, Burnham is back in Westminster.

Burnham’s Mancunian dreaming

Burnham’s vision for UK higher education is far from clear yet, but we do know what he thinks about education from his work in Manchester.

“Our education system is not designed to help everyone thrive, from early years right through to further education, and is not responsive enough to the needs of the local labour market”, states the Greater Manchester Strategy, an overarching policy document released by Manchester’s combined authority, with Burnham at the lead.

A combined authority is a grouping of local councils that collaborate to work across council boundaries. Manchester is the biggest example of one.

The strategy says that only a third of young people in Greater Manchester go to university. Those who do not take the university route can struggle to find technical education that leads to jobs in demand in the region.

And therein lies the Burnham approach.

In his by-election victory speech on 19 June, Burnham said: “No more an education system dominated by the university route, but an education system that offers a path for everybody, academic and technical in equal balance.”

This is, as Jim Dickinson at 1 points out, something that MPs have promised at least since the early 1990s and at a stretch since the 1940s.

It is also not that distant from Starmer’s proposals for two-thirds of young people to have some form of higher education by age 25, be that academic, technical or through apprenticeships.

The difference this time arguably, is that a happy vision of higher education and vocational education working together in equal measure appears to be in full swing in Manchester.

Back in 2023, Burnham spoke in the House of Lords promoting the Manchester Baccalaureate (MBacc), a devolved version of the English Baccalaureate for vocational studies.

The MBacc is a school level qualification, but the choice of secondary routes available changes how students funnel into higher and further education.

Burnham said at the time the aim was to offer options, not take away from university demand. “In no way am I denigrating the university route at all. It is one of the great strengths of this country, as are our universities. It is tremendous that so many people are on the university route (…) but it is not right for everybody.

“I say this in no way to minimise what our colleges do, or colleges anywhere in England do, but there is a sense that they do everything everywhere and qualifications are not necessarily linked as well as they might be to opportunities in the wider economy.”

What was clear then and remains clear now is Burnham wants to strongly couple training opportunities to industry need, and specifically to local need. He wants young people in Manchester to have a clear understanding of what opportunities exist in the local labour market, and how they can credibly reach them.

Not all are impressed with MBacc. Jonathan Simons, Head of Education Practice at think tank Public First said of the MBacc in a blog post: “it is, in truth, neither a proper qualification, nor something that really sits within Mayoral control – it’s a badge for existing national qualifications and some work experience, wrapped in a Manchester banner”.

But perhaps a Manchester wrapping is a good idea for Manchester students. According to a recent report from the Greater Manchester Civic University Board, 40 percent of graduates stay in Greater Manchester after completing their studies. That means local employment outcomes for Manchester’s graduates is highly important.

The ‘Greater Manchester Strategy’, published last year in July, highlights a need for a balance between traditional university programmes and technical education.

“Our Greater Manchester universities are among the best in the world and are an amazing asset to our city region. They’re working hard to increase access to higher education, especially for young people from working class backgrounds – including through degree apprenticeships”, states the strategy.

According to the strategy, only a third of young people in Greater Manchester pursue a university education. The remaining young people who do not continue onto university can struggle to find the technical education courses and qualifications that feed into the Greater Manchester job market.

But that is strategy. The universities themselves think that Burnham’s leadership has brought tangible change beyond grand policy visions.

“Bear in mind we are now 20 years into the devolution project” says Joanne Purves, University of Salford’s Pro Vice Chancellor for International and Regional Partnerships. Politics has been strikingly stable in the region, benefitting the sector’s long-term trajectory.

Purves told QS Insights that Burnham’s combined authority works very closely with the region’s universities through the Greater Manchester Civic University Board, of which she is chair.

“They want us to grow” Purves said of the combined authority.

Burnham is walking the talk on education-industry links too. The education hubs of Greater Manchester are strongly linked in local industry, according to Purves. Of note is ‘Atom Valley’, a business and innovation hub in development in the north of Greater Manchester, which the region’s universities are feeding into directly.

The collaboration shows up on the university balance sheets. University of Manchester, University of Salford, and Manchester Metropolitan University are all thriving. All run healthy operating surpluses and appear to be growing. That stands in contrast to the many universities quickly entering the red.

New face, old place

It could well be a little too fast to jump to any conclusions about a new PM singlehandedly shifting the direction of universities. The PM is the top position in the country but is only one cog in the monolith of government. It is, after all, only the leader changing, not the party in power.

Burnham’s stance on education is not radically different from what Labour has been saying already, says Purves. It remains to be seen whether Burnham’s work on vocational training in Manchester will work further afield – “whether he translates that to a national level, I don’t know”.

Sources from inside Whitehall and familiar with its turgid processes tell QS Insights that any nationwide change will not appear overnight. Andy Burnham’s immediate priority will not be education, but defence, one civil servant said. If there are any changes he needs to push through it will be there.

The civil servants QS Insights spoke to agreed any meaningful change in education policy would be slow, realistically taking between 6 months and a year before anything of substance could materialise.

“It does seem like we have just switched Keir for northern slightly more likable Keir”, said one civil servant.

There is one room however where change will happen immediately and that is the cabinet, the executive heart of UK government. On education, The Guardian reports that current Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson looks to be in a good position to stay. The Independent thinks that a few others will by vying for the education job, including party deputy leader Lucy Powell and culture secretary Lisa Nandy.

The top decision-making body of UK government will, whether directly education or not, change. That could have knock on effects for priorities of government as a whole.

If Burnham becomes PM, it will be on the back of his party’s support, not voters. This was the case for the multiple Conservative leadership changes over the past decade too. Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak all entered No 10 only on party support, although it should be noted both May and Johnson went on to win general elections as incumbents to retain power. Starmer became leader on a successful general election, but Burnham returns to the decade-long tradition of entering through a party vote.

For all the initial support back in Manchester, he has not won a mandate of the British public. In the past decade, Prime Ministers have not lasted long in such an environment. It remains to be seen whether a local political superhero who has lifted up his local universities can buck the trend.

Read the full magazine online

Tim van Gardingen is a freelance journalist and analyst specialising in international higher education and commodity markets. He previously worked for the British Council’s insights and consultancy team in Beijing, where he covered HE sector developments in over 30 countries. Tim holds a BA in German and Chinese from the University of Leeds and an MA in International Political Economy from King’s College London.

Rankings red flags for the US

By Francesca Di Meglio

In brief

US higher education dominance is becoming increasingly fragile as new rankings data reveals a sector in potential decline.
Restrictive visa policies and research funding cuts have triggered sharp drops in international student and faculty metrics.
Stability depends on restoring funding and simplifying visas to prioritise international collaboration and rebuild global academic trust.

A close reading of the QS World University Rankings 2027 demonstrates that recent policies by the administration of President Donald Trump are putting the United States’ domination of higher education at risk.

Experts have already warned that if these policies – regarding restrictions on international student and faculty visas, fewer scholarships for foreigners, and less funding and support for academic research – continue much longer, other countries will step in to fill the void.

They are already trying.

What the QS rankings demonstrate

Nineteen of the top 70 universities are in the United States. Of those 19 institutions, ten dropped places, four stayed the same, and only five improved their position, according to these latest rankings. These fluctuations in themselves aren’t cause for alarm. Universities often go up and down on these lists. However, digging deeper into the data reveals some red flags.

Firstly, 15 of the universities dropped positions in the International Student Ratio indicator. The University of California Berkeley, Harvard, and University of Michigan had the most significant decreases, dropping 78, 54 and 53 places in the indicator, respectively. Tellingly, international student ration scores also dropped significantly, at time by almost 10 points.

Only Johns Hopkins University had a meaningful increase in its position, improving by 39 places. Meanwhile, thirteen US universities experienced a drop in their position on the international faculty ratio indicator.

In the last year, Trump’s administration has restricted visas. Specifically, the United States capped student visas at four years, which means students who are in longer programmes must file for an extension. There are travel bans on international students and faculty from a certain group of countries.

There are reports that more than 90 percent of student visa applications were rejected. In addition, the administration allowed the expiration of designations for those who come from countries in crisis and had permission to work more hours and take fewer classes. The United States also made it more challenging for those with F-1 visas to transfer from one university to another without intense review.

This is not to mention the dramatic changes to the H1-B visa program, in which employers sponsor foreign workers with specialisations and higher degrees to work in the United States after graduation. The administration attempted to charge applicants $100,000 until a judge struck down the fee for being an illegal tax.

Applicants must consider the prohibitive costs and whether they will be able to take advantage of the Stateside network and recruiting help that their school provides. This problem is even starker for graduate students. Taking all these factors into consideration makes people reluctant to pursue education in the United States.

A black cloud over research

Most importantly, perceptions have soured for people coming from abroad. The administration’s approach to immigrants is giving people pause.

A telling factor is the data on Citations per Faculty in the 2027 rankings. Only three of the 19 universities either retained their rank or improved – Harvard, which remained in the same position, Princeton, which improved two places, and Carnegie Mellon University, which improved five.

Thirteen universities saw a drop in both ranking and score in the Citations per Faculty indicator – in one instance, an institution dropped 108 places and lost more than 17 points in the indicator, the largest loss of score for any of the institutions in this list.

Eight also had a drop in their International Research Network (IRN) ranking with the University of Chicago’s loss of 81 places and Princeton’s drop of 66 being the most notable. Interestingly, however, while eight institutions dropped their position within the IRN, only four decreased their score, indicating the increased external competition.

Indeed, US international scholar growth plummeted from 10 percent to 3.5 percent, according to the international education network NAFSA, which was previously reported by QS Insights.