2 ENTRY AND ADMISSION TO HIGHER
EDUCATION
Introduction
33. For many undergraduate studentsand for
the public perception of admission to universitythe entrance
process to university has almost become a national ritual revolving
around the A-level results announced each August. The typical
prospective student is seen as someone who, at age 17 or 18, pours
over prospectuses for full-time courses and universities, makes
an application, in some cases attends an interview, receives a
response (or not) making a conditional offer, sits A-levels, receives
the results, and, aged 18 or 19, leaves home and goes off to university
for three years.
34. This is a process faced by many young people
every year and is often relatively straightforward. UCAS,[55]
the central clearing house for applications, processes half a
million applications a year to higher education institutions.
It made the point that for a "significant majority of applicants
the progression from the 14-19 phase of education to higher education
is smooth",[56]
adding that the processing system is "highly efficient with
the majority of places in [higher education institutions] confirmed
within a day of the publication of GCE A-level results. For example,
in 2008, 349,449 applicants (63%) had their places confirmed on
15 August 2008, out of a total of 554,499. By 8 October 2008 this
percentage had risen to 81% (451,871 applicants).[57]
(Though we note at paragraphs 12 to 14 that the process may not
be as smooth in 2009 as in previous years.)
35. As, however, UCAS explained this is not the whole
picture. First, there is a group of approximately 100,000 applicants
who may be eligible to apply but fall through the system, though
the reasons are not clear. This could be, for example, because
they may not hold offers of places at university or they may not
have met the conditions of their offer. Nor is it clear how many
of this group do not have the minimum entry requirements in English
and mathematics for higher education. Research carried out by
UCAS into these "non-placed applicants" found that women,
black and minority ethnic groups and older applicants are over-represented.
The research confirmed that about one third of such students subsequently
re-apply, but others may be lost for good to higher education.[58]
Million+ expressed concern about this group and told us that some
people found "it difficult to penetrate into universities;
we are not sufficiently open and welcoming to them. [W]e have
recognised that and we are trying to do a number of things; in
particular, the extra energy that we are now putting into links
with schools and colleges is important and overdue."[59]
36. Second, UCAS pointed out that the Leitch
target[60]of 40%
of all adults in England gaining a university qualification by
2020[61] (see paragraph
142 and following)which the Government is working to implement,
will depend on improving the take-up of part-time, as well as
full-time, learners. UCAS said that part-time learning was an
important route to higher education qualifications, particularly
for those seeking to combine work with learning. But at present,
it noted that there was no shared system for admissions or single
source of reliable information for part-time undergraduate courses.
UCAS told us that research it had conducted suggested that potential
learners and their advisers found it difficult to locate the information
they needed.[62]
BALANCE OF FUNDING
37. Universities UK pointed out to us that as the
number of students in higher education grew from 1.8 million in
1997 to 2.4 million in 2007, during the same period the number
of part-time students grew from 618,000 to 911,000, and the number
of students aged over 21 grew from 1.2 million to 1.6 million.[63]
Professor Ebdon, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire
and Chair of Million+, told us that 47% of his students were "over
the age of 24 before they join us, yet people always assume that
students are 18-year-olds".[64]
Over three-fifths (60%) of initial entrants to higher education
are 17-20 year olds.[65]
But, apparently drawing on the work of the Campaign for Learning,
the 157 Group pointed out that this group was set to receive three-quarters
(75%) of the overall funding in 2010-11.[66]
The Campaign for Learning considered that young full-time higher
education was effectively crowding out the other three segments
of higher education,[67]
which it illustrated with the box below.
Box 1: Initial Entrants (2006-07) and
public funding of undergraduate higher education (2010-11) in
England

The 157 Group's pointthat full-time 17-20
year olds appear to receive more than their fair share of the
fundingraises important questions about the allocation
of higher education funding and whether higher education and further
education should be supported by a single funding stream rather
than the current arrangements. The apparent disparity of funding
in favour of young full-time students raises questions about the
justification of the balance of the allocation of resources in
higher education funding between young full-time, young part-time,
mature full-time and mature part-time students. The allocation
of resources between these groups and the broader question of
a single funding stream for higher education and further education
are matters that our successor committee with responsibility for
both further and higher education may wish to examine.
ROLE OF FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES
38. Finally, to complete the picture, the 157 Group,
whose members provide higher education, pointed out that adult
learners wishing to access higher education are likely to come
through a further education college route. It said that for the
majority of adults who wished to go on to higher education they
will choose to "study locally and generally part time, owing,
in part, to their own pressures and personal or family commitments"[68]
and that evidence suggested that adult learners were increasingly
likely to complete a Foundation Degree[69]
locally and seek to "top up" with a local higher education
provider.[70]
39. As well as providing qualified entrants to universities
and colleges of higher education 286[71]
further education colleges provide higher education courses and
higher level qualifications (at levels 4 and 5), either in their
own right or under partnership arrangements with higher education
institutions. Professor Gareth Parry from the University of Sheffield
in a submission to the 2005 Foster Review of Further Education[72]
pointed out that further education colleges in England contributed
"more than a third of entrants to higher education and teach
one in eight of the undergraduate population. They are at the
centre of policies to increase and widen participation in higher
education".[73]
Fair Access
40. When the legislation introducing variable tuition
fees for higher education institutions in England was under consideration
in 2004, there were concerns that the amount of debt new graduates
would be faced with could dissuade some potential students from
entering higher education altogether (see paragraph 109 for more
detail). In seeking to address these concerns, the Government
established the Office for Fair Access to higher education (OFFA).
Its core aims are:
a) to support and encourage improvements
in participation rates in higher education from low income and
other under-represented groups;
b) to reduce as far as practicable the barriers
to higher education for students from low income and other under-represented
groups by ensuring that institutions continue to invest in bursaries
and outreach; and
c) to support and encourage equality of opportunity
through the provision of clear and accessible financial information
for students, their parents/carers and their advisers.[74]
In our view this definition appears to encompass
both widening participation and fair access. For the purposes
of this Report we have drawn a distinction as follows.
- We take widening participation
to be concerned with the student body, and the sector, more generally
increasing the number of students from lower socio-economic (and
other under-represented) groups who can benefit from higher education.
(We deal with widening participation from paragraph 57 below.)
- The term fair access has come to be associated
with concern to ensure that students from poor backgrounds are
enabled to enter the most prestigious universities with the most
demanding entry requirements without unwarranted hurdles. But
it goes wider and we take the term to mean an admissions process
that ensures that there are no unwarranted obstacles in the way
of applicants to prevent them from entering the institution best
suited to their aptitudes and capabilities.
We agree with the view of the University of Leicester
in its written submission to the inquiry that there "needs
to be clear thinking and delineation between strategies to encourage
wider participation [
] and strategies to encourage fair
access".[75] We
are therefore making a distinction and dealing with fair access
in this section and with widening participation separately in
the following section in this chapter.
VIEWS OF STUDENTS
41. One of the questions we posed in the e-consultation
with students was whether the admissions process for universities
was fair. There was no consensus in the views expressed. A few
considered the system fair, a larger group considered it fair
but had reservations and a significant number considered it unfair.
The view of one respondent who considered the admissions process
fair was that it was working well:
My experience of the admissions process was fantastic,
I got offers from all the universities to which I applied, whilst
still coming from a lower middle class background and going to
a relatively average state school. When I went to interview at
the two universities that required me to have one, my grades were
never on the agenda even though they were not all A's, it was
always "have you got any questions for us?' 'I see from your
personal statement that...." and "why do you want to
come to this university?" The interviewers wanted to know
about me, not my grades.[76]
42. The concerns of those who considered the process
fair with reservations and unfair coalesced around the same issues:
A-levels and interviews. Much of the debate focussed on whether
too much emphasis was placed on A-level results and how to differentiate
those who obtained three As at A-level. Some considered that A-levels
should be supplemented with, or replaced by, interviews as examination
results reflected only a small part of an applicant's intelligence
and aptitude. The countervailing view was that interviews made
the process too subjective. Some considered that universities
should not base their choice of students on their academic and
socio-economic backgrounds but on the grades that they had worked
hard to achieve at A-level. The view was also expressed that the
focus on A-level results excluded adequate consideration of vocational
training and other non-academic achievements and that it favoured
those from good educational backgrounds.[77]
A-LEVELS AND SELECTION
43. The last ten years have seen a significant increase
in the proportion of A grades awarded in A-levels. In 1997, only
15.7%[78] of A-level
examination results were A grades, but in 2008 the top mark comprised
25.9%[79] of the results
awarded in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the A Grade
was the modal gradethat is, there were more A grades than
any other. It is outside the scope of this Report to consider
the reasons for this increase, but there can be little doubt that
it reduces the ability of universities facing competition for
places to differentiate between applicants and to judge an applicant's
potential to benefit from higher education. It follows that where
competition for places is fierceston some courses we were
told that there were 20 applicants for each place[80]universities
tend to add additional entrance requirements such as interviews
and examinations.
44. For example, when we visited the University of
Oxford, where competition for admission to the majority of courses
was strong, the staff of the university explained the admissions
and selection process in detail. The University explained that
the colleges and University operated the Common Framework Agreement
for Admissions and under these arrangements the University and
its colleges identified students, irrespective of background,
who, in the University's view, would benefit from the collegiate
education provided at the University. The University told us that
it spent a great deal of time and energy reviewing and interviewing
candidates and that even if a candidate was not invited to interview
his or her application would be reviewed by at least three members
of staff. In his oral evidence to us, the Vice-Chancellor, Dr
Hood, explained that during the past three or four years Oxford
had tried to ensure that its admission processes were "as
fair as possibly they can be in terms of assessing the quality
of those applicants and most particularly their potential to succeed
at Oxford" and that "we have been transparent about
that and we have been rigorous about it, and if those systems
are fair and transparent then the outcome will [
] be what
the outcome is".[81]
We welcome Dr Hood's emphasis on transparency.
45. During the inquiry, we noted evidence that A-levels
may not provide the full measurement of a person's potential.
For example, in 2005 HEFCE examined whether the school characteristics
of an 18 year-old entrant with A-level qualifications to degree
courses in 1997-98 could be used to determine his or her potential
in higher education. The report found that:
students from lower performing schools are not
expected to do consistently better in HE than similar students
from higher performing schools. However, we did find that students
from non-independent schools and colleges appeared to do consistently
better than students from independent schools, when compared on
a like-for-like basis."[82]
46. The 2004 Admission to Higher Education Review[83]
("the Schwartz Review") concluded that its first recommended
principle of admissions was that a fair admissions system should
be transparent.[84] The
Review also stated that it is "fair and appropriate to consider
contextual factors" given the variation in learners' opportunities
and circumstances.[85]
The organisation Supporting Professionalism in Admissions said
that "a number of the principles in the Schwartz Review had
been successfully adopted by the higher education sector, particularly
in relation to the areas of transparency, staff training and continuing
professional development, aspects of professionalism and the use
of technology to share resources and information".[86]
THE USE AND APPLICATION OF CONTEXTUAL
FACTORS
47. On contextual factors, we were interested to
hear Professor Arthur, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds,
explain that those applying for the first time to university who
had a personal, social or educational disadvantagefor example,
if they came from a care backgroundwere offered by Leeds
a specific programme for entry, including a discount on A-level
requirements.[87] We
are aware that a number of universities follow similar policies[88]
and see no reason why all universities could not develop similar
approaches to encourage widening participation. We commend
the University of Leeds for its programme of entry for students
from disadvantaged backgrounds and conclude that this should be
standard practice across the sector. In our view this practice
will require higher education institutions to develop programmes
for entry, which take account of contextual factors giving a discount
on A-level requirements, to ensure fair access.
48. On the use of contextual factors, we consider
that the Government needs to clarify its view of their use and
applicability and the evidence that underpins its view. We
recommend that the Government require higher education institutions,
in receipt of public funds, to take contextual factors into account
and to set out which ones it requires higher education institutions
to take into account. In our view the Government also needs
to establish whether, and to what extent, higher education institutions
have adopted the findings of the Schwartz Review. We recommend
that, within the next year, the Government review and report on
the extent to which higher education institutions have adopted
the findings of the Schwartz Review on Admission to Higher Education.
The review also needs to examine the extent to which contextual
factors are applied consistently across the sector. We also recommend
that the Government put in place arrangements to monitor the consequences
of the use of contextual factors on measures such as completion
rates.
CODE OF PRACTICE ON ADMISSIONS
49. Universities UK was concerned not to establish
a uniform or mechanistic system that "would risk trading
one form of inflexibility for another" and continued that
it was aiming for a system "at the level of the applicant,
[
] to assess their potential, not to create a simple sorting
out of people according to their educational background".[89]
This view has to be set within an overriding principle of fair
access to all higher education institutions and in this matter
we are not focussing on those institutions where competition is
strongest. In our view the principle of fair access to higher
education is the paramount principle that must govern admissions
and we have no reservation in stating that it overrides other
standard assumptions of the sector such as institutional autonomy.
In our view it is unacceptable for any part of the higher education
sector to cite higher education institutional autonomy as a reason
to sidestep the requirement to ensure fair access.
50. We consider that, to ensure consistency and good
practice on admissions across the sector, all higher education
institutions should follow established practice. As Supporting
Professionalism in Admissions pointed out:
One recommendation from the Schwartz Report was
the need for a central source of expertise and advice on admissions
issues for higher education provider institution [
] The
Supporting Professionalism in Admissions (SPA) Programme was established
in May 2006 to lead on the development of fair admissions, providing
an evidence base and guidelines for good practice and in helping
universities and colleges maintain and enhance excellence and
professionalism in admissions, student recruitment and widening
participation across the HE sector. SPA is a small independent
programme, funded by all UK HE funding councils until 2011 and
works throughout the UK to support institutions to review their
policies and procedures to make them more transparent; to use
fair methods that are open and accountable [
]. Over the
next three years SPA will focus more on working with senior management
teams within institutions on topics concerning modernising admissions
and the associated good practice.[90]
We also note that in 2006 the QAA produced a code
of practice for admissions to higher education in higher education
institutions.[91]
51. In our view, it is important that the operation
and principles underpinning admissions arrangements are fully
explained by all higher education institutions and that applicants
know how, and against what criteria, they will be assessed. We
consider that higher education institutions have nothing to loseand
potentially much to gainby explaining not only the mechanics
of their selection processes but also the principles underlying
their processes and how they measure the potential of prospective
students to benefit from study at their institutions. For example,
in our view, it would be good practice that all applications for
places should be reviewed by at least two people and that contextual
factors are clearly established that can legitimately be taken
into account when assessing applications. We consider that
there is a role for government working with the higher education
sector to agree a set of principles that apply to the admission
process, which should be promulgated as a code of practice on
admissions to higher education across institutions. We stress
that we are not calling for a common admissions process or for
government to specify the actual admissions and selection rules,
but, given the diversity of higher education institutions, we
conclude that the sector should have arrangements that reduce
the elements of randomness and chance in the system and help ensure
students to get a fairer deal.
MUTUAL RECOGNITION AGREEMENTS
52. Professor Arthur, Vice-Chancellor of Leeds, told
us about mutual recognition of pre-admission arrangements at Leeds:
we are partnering with ten other institutions
[
] many of which are in the Russell Group that have a similar
programme and we are arranging to swap students, as it were. So
if a student does well in our ten credit module and we make an
offer and that student does not wish to come to Leeds and wishes
to go to another university they can transfer that credit across.[92]
Professor Arthur explained that the arrangements
at his university had the advantage that they involved direct
interaction with the applicant student and "we have the security
of having taken them through one of our own modules and we have
seen the results; so we have evaluated their potential in a way
that we are confident about the course".[93]
He added that whether other universities would be "confident
about our activities is up to them".[94]
We consider that where universities agree to recognise each
other's studentseither applicants who have met their admission
criteria, including those who have earned a discount on the usual
entrance requirements, or students who have earned creditssuch
an approach could make a significant contribution to credit transfer
and portability for students wishing or needing to transfer between
higher education institutions and in expanding both participation
and diversity in the student body. We recommend that the Government
require those higher education institutions in receipt of public
funds to enter mutual recognition agreements and for the terms
of all agreements to be published.
FAIR ACCESS TO UNIVERSITIES IN THE
RUSSELL GROUP AND 1994 GROUP
53. Professor Driscoll, Vice-Chancellor of Middlesex
University, was of the view that concentration on admission of
"working class" children to Russell Group universities
was "very much a second or third order of importance to the
unfairness of people who do not get a place in any university".[95]
He pointed out that universities were "faced with record
applications and over the next three years, if there is no lifting
in the numbers cap[96]
[on the number of admissions], [
] students who could get
a place in university will not get a place".[97]
54. Professor Arthur from Leeds, a Russell Group
university, appeared to take a different view. He pointed out
to us that nine of the members of our Committee were graduates
of Russell Group institutions,[98]
with the implication, so we perceived it, that graduates from
the Group had better access to certain professions. The Schwartz
Report noted higher education was "a valuable commodity:
it can affect salary, job security and power to influence society."[99]
In its submission in March 2009 to the Milburn Commission on access
to the professions, the Sutton Trust said that from its comparison
of the university backgrounds (in terms of the first degrees)
of leading professionals what was "most striking is that
almost all those in our surveys had participated in higher education
and most had attended a handful of the most selective, research-led
institutions."[100]
The Trust set out the results in a table:
Table 2: University backgrounds broken
down by profession
Profession
| Year
| Sample
| Oxbridge %
| ST13 %[101]
|
Barristers | 2004
| 337 | 82
| |
Judges | 2007
| 100 | 78
| |
"Magic Circle" Solicitors
| 2004 | 429
| 53 |
|
Journalists | 2006
| 97 | 45
| 13[102]
|
Lords | 2007
| 631 | 42
| 56 |
Chief Executive Officers |
2007 | 100
| 39 |
|
MPs | 2007
| 625 | 27
| 44 |
Vice-Chancellors | 2008
| 114 | 23
| 47 |
Medics | 2007
| 100 | 15
| |
ALL |
| 2,533 | 45
| |
The Sutton Trust also made the point that it was possible to compare
the university backgrounds of the leading figures of today with
their counterparts of ten or twenty years ago.[103]
Table 3: Comparing university backgrounds of those
at the top of professions
| Year
| Sample
| OXB%
| ST13%[104]
|
Judges | 1989
| 100 | 87
| |
| 2007
| 100 | 78
| |
|
Journalists | 1986
| 100 | 67
| |
| 2006
| 100 | 56
| |
|
Vice-Chancellors | 1998
| 101 | 36
| 50 |
| 2008
| 114 | 27
| 47 |
|
Medics | 1987
| 100 | 28
| |
| 2007
| 100 | 15
| |
|
Chief Executive Officers |
1987 | 100
| 67 |
|
| 2007
| 100 | 39
| |
|
Politicians | 1974
| 100 | 62
| |
| 2007
| 100 | 42
| |
|
Barristers | 1989
| 136 | 88
| 97 |
| 2004
| 337 | 82
| 93 |
|
"Magic circle" solicitors
| 1988 | 138
| 65 | 83
|
| 2004
| 429 | 53
| 79 |
55. The evidence from the Sutton Trust indicates that entrance
to, and graduation from, certain universities has generated higher
lifetime earnings and arguably greater social capital. We are
not, in this Report, taking a view that this is a good or bad
thing. If, however, it is the case, as the evidence appears to
show, then it follows that fair access to these higher education
institutions is a matter of legitimate public interest.
56. The universities in the 1994 and Russell Groups
have for a variety of reasons had the greatest competition for
places and they have the resources to fund intensive and demanding
teaching and they also offer degrees that have been perceived
as carrying a premium in the employment market. It is therefore
essential that access to institutions in these Groups is fair.
We consider that it is of particular importance that admission
to the universities where competition is greatest must be completely
fair. In our view, both fair access and widening participation
are important and one cannot be traded off against the other.
We consider that fair access must be seen as important by the
whole higher education sector, particularly those higher education
institutions that historically have generated the highest lifetime
earnings and most social capital for their graduates.
Widening Participation
57. Whereas fair access is concerned with the specific
institutions that students enter, and ensuring that there are
no unwarranted barriers, widening participation is concerned with
the student body, and the sector more generally, and ensuring,
as Professor Driscoll pointed out, that those who could go to
university apply and get a place.[105]
The Russell Group defined widening participation as "increasing
the number of students from lower socio-economic groups who can
benefit from higher education".[106]
We would prefer "increasing the proportion of students
from lower socio-economic groups and from other groups who are
underrepresented in higher education who can benefit from higher
education". Schemes such as that outlined in oral evidence
by Professor Arthur (at paragraph 47) show that fair access and
widening participation can be linked. But widening participation
raises broader and complex issues.
58. The NAO (National Audit Office) provided us with
a memorandum[107] setting
out the findings from its reports on widening participation[108]
and student retention[109]
in higher education. The NAO said that:
Access to higher education and success within
it will provide most students with greater opportunities for the
rest of their lives. Over their working life graduates have been
shown to earn, on average, over £100,000 more than similar
non-graduates with A levels.[110]
Employers, the economy, and society as a whole benefit when students
complete their studies.[111]
The NAO identified socio-economic background as "a
strong determinant of higher education participation,"[112]
adding that, while participation of young, full-time students
from lower socio-economic backgrounds had improved slightly over
the previous five years,[113]
people from "lower socio-economic backgrounds made up around
one half of the population of England, but represented 29% of
young, full-time, first-time entrants to higher education".[114]
59. The NAO confirmed that "the attainment of
qualifications by students at secondary school or college played
a critical role in gaining access to higher education"[115]
and that:
Low achievement was the principal reason for
the difference between rates of participation in higher education
for different groups. Notably, all applicants with the necessary
qualifications were equally likely to accept a higher education
place as others with the same level of attainment, regardless
of their family background.
60. The Russell Group told us that "you cannot
solve decades of socio-economic inequality in this country by
simply widening the gates of admissions to universities".[116]
In its written evidence the Group drew attention to a number of
factors affecting, and in some instances narrowing, participation
in higher education:
- Compelling evidence demonstrates
how early the problem of educational inequality begins.[117]
At 22 months, the link between socio-economic background and educational
attainment is evident. By the age of six, middle-class children
who had low scores in cognitive tests at 22 months have completely
overtaken the few poorer children who had done well in those tests.
- The socio-economic gap actually widens as children
progress through school and by GCSE, the gap becomes a gulf. Attainment
of 5+ good (A*-C) GCSEs varies by over 40 percentage points between
the top and bottom socio-economic backgrounds (77 per cent compared
to 31 per cent in 2002), so that children with professional parents
are well over twice as likely to gain five or more good GCSEs
than children with parents in routine occupations. Young people
whose parents have degree qualifications are also disproportionately
more likely to study post-16 at A-level61 per cent of pupils
with at least one parent with a degree level qualification as
opposed to 27 per cent where neither parent has A-level qualifications.[118]
- Pupils who go to independent and grammar schools
are far more likely to take key subjects such as sciences, maths
and modern languages. Pupils at independent schools are roughly
three times more likely to be doing further maths and 2.5 times
more likely to be doing a language A-level than those at comprehensive
schools.
- The number of students receiving 3+ A grades
at A-level is increasing and the students achieving the top grades
are studying disproportionately at independent schools.
- This divergence in levels of attainment is accelerating
instead of diminishing. The independent sector saw a 9.1 percentage
point increase in the number of A grades at A-level between 2002
and 2008from 41.3 per cent to 50.4 per cent. Over the same
period, top grades in comprehensives increased by only 3.9 points
to 20.4 per cent.[119],
[120]
61. Further salient data was supplied to us by Department
for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) which showed that of
those reaching 19 by the end of the 2007-08 academic year (i.e.
having completed GCSEs in year 11 in 2004): 41% of pupils with
7 GCSEs, grades A*-C, had not achieved a Level 3 qualification
by 19; 30% of those with 8 GCSEs had not done so; 16% of those
with 9 GCSEs had not; and as many as 10% of pupils14,000with
10 or more GCSEs grades A*-C had not progressed to Level 3 by
19.[121] Many of these
young people appear to have had the qualifications to be able
to continue their education to a higher level, though with the
reduction in the expansion of numbers entering higher educationsee
paragraph 12 and followingmany would not have been able
to enter higher education. Pat Bacon from the 157 Group
said that "we have to find a way of teasing out the brightest
and best of our communities" because "there are an awful
lot of young people who are not at Level 3 by the time they are
18; therefore, the opportunity for part-time study, for picking
up higher education further on, is important".[122]
The 157 Group called for a review of Level 3 provision,[123]
which covers A-levels, diplomas and apprenticeships. It appears
that not only are levels of attainment between state and independent
schools diverging at Level 3 but also large numbers of able young
people are not studying to Level 3, the main entrance gate to
benefit from higher education.
62. We recognise the point that the Russell Group
is making that much of the disparity in attainment at Level 3
is attributable to factors that occur well before application
to university and that the steps that universities can take will
not remove these factors. We understand that the Government may
plan to review A-levels and other Level 3 qualifications in 2013.[124]
In the light of the evidence we received in this inquiry we consider
that such a timescale is too long: there appears to be a growing
divergence between the state and independent sectors in this respect.
Many able young people are failing to progress from GCSEs to Level
3 and, as we note later in this chapter, many young people are
receiving inadequate careers guidance, including poor advice on
suitable A-levels necessary for entry into higher education. We
recommend that the Government carry out, before the next Spending
Review, a full review of the provision of education at Level 3,
including the Qualifications Framework and all routes into higher
education, to ensure that those who have the ability to benefit
from higher education have the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
63. We have noted that members of the 157 Group provide
higher education. In our view the review should also include an
examination of the extent to which expansion of higher education
in further education colleges would assist those who currently
do not progress to higher education. We recommend that the
review include an examination of expanding higher education provided
in further education colleges, to assist those who currently could,
but do not, go forward into higher education.
BENCHMARKS
64. While the main levers for widening participation
in higher education lie outside universities, primarily in the
home and at school, this does not mean that higher education institutions
have a minimal part to play in widening participation. Moreover,
the factors that the Russell Group set out (see paragraph 60)
have the potential to narrow participation in higher education.
In our view this is an area that government needs to monitor carefully.
The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) publishes annual
performance indicators on the composition of students in individual
institutions for three under-represented groups: individuals from
state schools, from lower socio-economic backgrounds and from
areas with low participation in higher education.[125]
The benchmarks are not targets and have no financial incentives
or penalties associated with them. As the HEFCE guidance on the
benchmarks explained:
Because there are such differences between institutions,
the average values for the whole of the higher education sector
are not necessarily helpful when comparing higher education institutions.
Adjusted sector averages are therefore calculated for each institution
that take into account some of the factors which contribute to
differences between them. The factors are: subject of study, qualifications
on entry, age on entry (young or mature). The average that has
been adjusted for these factors is called the adjusted sector
benchmark. The benchmark can be used by higher education institutions
and others in two ways
- to see how well an institution
is performing compared with the [higher education] sector as a
whole
- to decide whether it is meaningful to compare
two institutions.[126]
65. The Government's 2003 White Paper, The Future
of Higher Education, included a commitment to widen participation
in higher education, by helping more people from under-represented
groups, particularly lower socio-economic backgrounds, to participate
successfully in higher education.[127]
Professor Driscoll from Middlesex University said that if "we
did not have the benchmark then we cannot make progress".[128]
He considered that the essence of any system that was trying to
make progress was to "set as clear a target as possible and
then to ask people to produce the strategies that will achieve
that. The strategies we use at the moment may be failing and we
may need to rethink how we can get closer to those as targets."[129]
66. We raised the issue of benchmarks for the state
school participation rate (set out in the table below) with the
Vice-Chancellors of Oxford Brookes University and the University
of Oxford.
Table 4: Oxford universities' benchmarks
2007-08[130]
| Indicator %
| Benchmark %
|
Oxford Brookes University |
73.1 | 89.5
|
University of Oxford | 53.4
| 77.5 |
67. Professor Beer said that Oxford Brookes was "12%[131]
adrift from the benchmark",[132]
and she said that there was not a simple answer to missing the
benchmark because "we work hard in state schools to bring
in more students; we do no recruitment activity at all in private
schools, nothing at all. All our money is spent on recruitment
from the state school sector".[133]
Dr Hood said that clearly the University of Oxford did not meet
the benchmark but he considered that the benchmark was not relevant
to the University given the disciplinary mix and the numbers that
applied for each discipline. He pointed out:
we would have of the order of 1,300 applicants for undergraduate
medicine for 150 places. We have fewer than 300 applicants for
150 places in classics, for example. The spectrum of schools in
this country does not prepare students for classics degreesthat
is just one illustrationand you need to do this discipline
by discipline by discipline. Another of the flaws in the comparisons
that are made is to assume that the University of Oxford and the
University of Cambridge should be the same, but again there are
disciplinary differences, for example veterinary science and architecture
at Cambridge which we do not have here at Oxford, and different
profiles of applicants from the different sub-sectors of the national
system. [
] I do not think the benchmark is appropriate.[134]
68. We found benchmarks a useful tool when carrying out our inquiry
and we consider that they provide a helpful focus on widening
participation for higher education institutions and also in measuring
progress. They do, however, have their limitations: the case of
classics at the University of Oxford showed that the application
of the benchmark to that subject served no purpose as the pool
of potential students come predominantly from the independent
sector. As they are currently conceived and calculated, the institution-based
benchmarks are in effect averages, and by definition there must
be broadly as many below as above. Therefore, although they are
useful as a way of seeing where an institution stands in relation
to the sector as a whole (and to comparable institutions or to
see changes over time), to have an outcome beneath its benchmark
is not in itself indicative of unsatisfactory performance. It
is a necessary feature of these benchmarks that half of all institutions
will fall below their benchmarks. Subject to these caveats, benchmarks
can be of use in examining the higher education sector. We
conclude that the performance indicators which the Higher Education
Statistics Agency publishes on the composition of students from
under-represented groups in individual higher education institutions
provide a useful focus for the higher education sector on widening
participation and should continue to be published annually. We
consider, however, that benchmarks should not be used as targets
and that failure to meet benchmarks should not be used to criticise
higher education institutions until they are better developed
to discount all confounding factors.
SCHOOLS AND FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES
69. There is a wider responsibility on government to ensure that
those parts of the education system outside higher education,
over which it has greater control, give individuals who could
fulfil their potential at university the opportunity to participate
in higher education. The NAO explained to us that HEFCE did not
directly fund widening participation activities in institutions
but that instead since 1999-2000, it had:
allocated a proportion of its teaching grant based on the
types of students recruited, recognising that students from under-represented
groups or with lower entry qualifications were likely to cost
more to teach and retain, and counteracting a disincentive to
recruit them. It allocated recurrent funding for widening participation
to institutions in proportion to the number of existing students
from under-represented groups and gave £392 million in recurrent
funding to institutions between 2001-02 and 2007-08.[135]
70. We also received a significant volume of evidence and information
about outreach undertaken by the higher education sector.
- On our visits to the University of Oxford and Imperial College
London we found impressive evidence of the outreach to local schoolsthe
Lincolnshire Access Initiative[136]
and the Pimlico Connection[137]
respectively.
- Professor Arthur, Vice-Chancellor of Leeds, also
told us about the Access to Leeds Programme.[138]
- Professor Driscoll, Vice-Chancellor of Middlesex,
gave information about the outreach with schools in London.[139]
- In written evidence the Flying Start Project,
which is being conducted by Liverpool Hope University and the
University of Derby, provided information about the Liverpool
Hope University STARS project and operation of the University
of Derby as the first UK integrated dual-sector institution.[140]
- Professor Baker, Chair of GuildHE, which represents
29 higher education institutions, explained that:
we have had very strong links with professions;
and we are very much based in our communities. At Marjon,[141]
we do not recruit nationally; we recruit locally, sub-regionally
or regionally. That does place a very strong emphasis on building
up community relations. Therefore, in my own institution for example,
we do not wait until students are 17 or 18 to think about encouraging
them to look at the campus; we work with people at primary school
level, because the vast majority of our students are first-to-go-to-university
students. One of the things you therefore have to do is to break
down what might be seen as intimidatory barriers to encouraging
them into higher education. It is working with the whole community;
it is working with the whole family.[142]
71. Million+, which represents 28 universities, pointed
out that 48% of those admitted to universities came from further
education colleges.[143]
In addition, as we have noted, others enter higher education in
further education colleges. The 157 Group, representing the 26
largest further education colleges, pointed out that "General
[further education] colleges have a higher proportion of entrants
from lower socio-economic groups to [higher education] (34%) compared
to 25% in Sixth Form Colleges and 8% in private schools".[144]
We also noted that arrangements were evolving. John Harris from
SEMTA said that:
Two of our large engineering companies [
]
say that 50% of their professional engineers have come through
their apprenticeship programmes, so they have come to [further
education], on to [higher education], and probably through professional
institutions to become chartered engineers. That is an interesting
situation. I think that goes on in smaller companies but it is
not so visible, but certainly in larger companies it is very visible.
[We] see the diploma as a real opportunity to give young people
an opportunity to learn about, in our case, engineering, [
]
and to find out at a fairly young age if that is what they want
to do. We are confident. [We] are confident that advanced diploma
graduates will be able to go into the university and continue
their studies. It is a real opportunity for us.[145]
72. Ms Bacon from the 157 Group said that further
education colleges had "much to offer as strategic partners"[146]
and that its members were "well informed by our local communities".[147]
She explained that they knew:
what the demands are on the ground, and indeed
very much welcome and hope to see more of the flexibilities to
enable us to deliver. For example, I know that my staff were in
a manufacturing company yesterday, helping them with some skills
during the current downturn. I do not think that we need to be
precious about at what level. It could be about basic skills;
it could be about foundation degree level.[148]
We noted that Professor Parry in his submission to
the 2005 Foster Review of Further Education[149]
pointed out that:
Where evidence is available on the background
of students, the number and proportion of undergraduate entrants
from lower socio-economic groups is shown to be higher for [further
education colleges] than for maintained schools. Between the different
types of college, the greater part of this widening participation
role is played by general [further education colleges].[150]
73. We welcome the outreach to local schools and
colleges that many universities undertake and the growing co-operation
between higher education, schools and further education, which
has the potential to widen participation in higher education.
We encourage all higher education institutions to develop such
partnerships. This is a key area where the Government has
a responsibilityboth to foster co-operation and to ensure
that the split of responsibilities for education between what
was DIUS, and is now BIS, and DCSF does not create obstacles.
We recommend that the Government put arrangements in place
to enhance the co-operation between schools, further education
colleges and higher education to facilitate widening participation
in higher education. It is also worth noting that other routes
to strengthen outreach and co-operation between schools and universities
potentially include the direct involvement of higher education
institutions in school programmes and new school initiatives.
The current involvement by a number of UK universities in sponsorship
or support of schools should be carefully monitored to see if
this provides or has the potential for this. Other elements of
such co-operation could include the secondment of higher education
staff or students to local schools for specific initiatives or
periods or coursework at their local universities from schools.
It has also to be recognised that outreach initiatives can be
both demanding and time-consuming for higher education institutions.[151]
We recommend therefore that the Government and HEFCE urgently
examine ways in which both higher education institutions and staff
are incentivised to instigate and carry out outreach initiatives.
This might, for example, include ring-fenced funding of a relatively
modest nature to support widening participation specifically to
encourage new outreach initiatives and to recognise the specific
contributions of individual lecturers and staff at higher education
institutions.
74. During our visit to the US we heard how a universityHoward
University in Washington DChad effectively supported young
people from socio-economically deprived wards of the city to focus
on achieving excellence in STEM subjects and to improve their
choices of later progression into higher education. We consider
that the Government should encourage higher education institutions
to pilot initiatives that have potential to increase higher education/school
co-operation and facilitate wider participation.
75. We have not examined in detail in this Report
the relationship between higher education and further education
and this is an issue that our successor committee with responsibility
for further education and higher education may wish to consider.
FOUNDATION DEGREES AND FOUNDATION
YEARS
76. The 157 Group explained that many of its members
provided foundation degrees and that "this was very much
designed with an articulated progression route" to increase
levels of higher education.[152]
Further education colleges can be granted their own foundation
degree awarding powers[153]
and the Group said, as we have noted, that adult learners were
"more likely to complete a Foundation Degree locally and
potentially seek to 'top up' with a local HEI provider" and
that providing such routes for adults in higher education was
"essential to both meeting the 50% target and widening [participation]".[154]
While acknowledging that the foundation degree was a qualification
in its own right, the Group noted it had had ex-students "who
did the foundation degree coming out of the university of their
choice, in some case with First-Class Honours".[155]
77. We also heard that a "foundation year"
could prepare those who had not yet acquired the skills to study
at university. Professor Roger Brown, former Vice-Chancellor of
Southampton Solent, said that the universities had to cope with
a "much wider range of students from a much more diverse
set of backgrounds" and that there were more students than
previously who were "not well prepared for degree level entry,
and this is true even for students with good A Level results".[156]
He considered that if the higher education curriculum was being
designed today a foundation year might be available generally.
Professor Brown added that there was an issue about the extent
to which the school and university curricula were drifting apart
rather than coming together. He explained:
In the old days A levels were a good proxy for
first year university entry; A Levels do not fulfil that need
now and therefore on the one hand you have a proliferation of
rival qualifications like the pre-U, the A star, et cetera;
but on the other hand of course those qualifications are being
taken from pupils from a more differential range of schools. I
think there is a serious issue about the mismatch between the
school and the university curriculum, which individual universitiesand
most universitiesthat have similar arrangements [
]
cannot necessarily cope with.[157]
78. These views chimed with concerns raised by the
Flying Start Project that the division of post-16 education into
separately organised and funded sectors had "led to increasing
differences in the types of student learning, writing and assessment
that are expected at A-level and in Higher Education" and
that those differences were exacerbating the "difficulties
that many students experience in the transition to university
study".[158] The
Project said that there was a "demonstrable need for greater
shared understandings of learning and assessment among practitioners"
across the school, further education and higher education sectors.[159]
We were concerned to be told by the Flying Start Project that:
Post-16 education alone does not sufficiently
prepare students for university study. One study showed that the
majority of first year university undergraduates felt that A levels
had not prepared them for university.[160]
A comparative study of teaching methods found that A level
students were not expected to study autonomously and development
of critical analytic skills was mainly limited to preparation
for specific exam questions, whereas [higher education] students
were expected to be more autonomous and were encouraged to develop
more general analytical skills for assessment.[161]
The consequence is that many universities find themselves
having to offer classes in essay writing because students are
unable to write critically.[162],
[163]
But, the Flying Start Project added, institutions
were working together and a developing feature of post-compulsory
education was the emergence of dual-sector institutions providing
further education and higher education, and universities with
close links to schools and further education colleges. It said
that those institutions had "developed transition programmes
focusing on generic study skills, peer mentoring, and residential
experiences, which have been shown to improve university retention,
progression and completion".[164]
Community colleges
79. When we visited the USA we discussed the operation
of community colleges and visited the North Virginia Community
College, which offers two-year associate degrees, one-year certificates
and short career studies certificates. We found widespread support
for community colleges. The American Council on Education indicated
that they were the largest part of the higher education sector
and were increasingly becoming the gateway to higher education.
A common pattern was for a young person to enter a community college,
study for two years and then take their credits and transfer to
a State university from which he or she graduated after a further
two years of studyknown as "two-plus-two". The
University of California (UCAL) Washington DC Office representatives,
whom we met, commented that community colleges provided entry
level to higher education for "second chancers", the
opportunity for those in work to re-train and excellent vocational
courses. The point was also made to us that some of the best students
in UCAL had entered via community colleges and the two-plus-two
route. (We should add that we are aware that some universities,
especially the leading private institutions, while recognising
credits accumulated by a student coming from a community college,
may not accept these as sufficient for enrolment.)
80. In its evidence to us, the Inquiry into the Future
of Lifelong Learning pointed out that:
In 2002-03 over 11,000 of the 300,000 students
who entered higher education institutions did so having been at
a different institution in one of the preceding two years, with
most of these students receiving no credit for their previous
studies[
] Progress is much slower than it should be. The
problem is not a technical but a cultural one. In other words,
we know how to make a coherent system work, but there is a lack
of political will, at system and institutional level. The flexibility
which a proper credit framework brings will be all the more needed
in the light of current economic turbulence and the effects this
is having on employment: large numbers of adults will be seeking
to improve their qualifications without having to commit themselves
to a long stretch of full-time education.[165]
Credit accumulation and transfer
81. In England credit accumulation and transfer has
not developed to the same extent as in the USA[166]though
we recognise that even there it is far from universaland
so for community colleges or their equivalent to be developed
in England transfer arrangements would have to become more widespread.
Credit accumulation and transfer also has the potential to enable
greater flexibility within the higher education sector which would
allow part-time and mature students, as we discuss in chapter
3, to play a significant part in meeting the Government's Ambition
2020 (see paragraph 142 and following). Professor Driscoll, Vice-Chancellor
of Middlesex University, considered that:
we need to grasp the nettle of a national credit-based
system and national credit-based funding. You will find that the
universities, like mine, that have very diverse student bodies
(lots of part-timers, full-timers, people moving in and out [
])
are closer to what you will find, typically, in the United States
than those universities that are very monolithic, most of their
undergraduates are recruited [
] They do not want it because
they see it is a hassle, but I think we have to take a national
decision on this, and it is about time we caught up with the rest
of the world, we introduced a national credit-based system and
we fund students on credit as well, or institutions for their
teaching.[167]
82. We therefore asked John Denham for his view both
of the transfer of credits between higher education institutions
and of community colleges. He said that in the speech he had made
in February 2008 (see paragraph 7) he had held out the prospect
that students studying for a degree "might gain credits from
more than one institution offering higher education and that the
sector would be very likely to develop a much better system of
interchangeable and mutual recognition of credits in the future".[168]
He considered, however, that it was for the higher education sector
and:
not for me to describe that. That would open
up the possibility of work done in one institution, possibly an
FE /HE college, being a foundation for further study at another
institution. Where I get nervous or just think it is not possible
is the idea that there should be some central re-structuring of
our institutions. The Americans have evolved quite a highly structured
thing but it has evolved over time. We start from a different
place.[169]
But, in addressing the question whether England should
have community colleges and the two-plus-two model, he added that:
What I am saying is the ability to follow that
path is undoubtedly something for which there will be greater
demand in the future. I think we will see a greater development
of higher level work based learning. Foundation degrees deliver
that to a considerable but not total extent. It is still actually
the case that if you, for example, do an apprenticeship you reach
craft levellevel threeand you want to go to a higher
level with the same method of learning, you will not easily always
find a place in a higher education institution to do that, or
necessarily in an FE/HE college. So there will be additional ways
of learning to a higher level and that will be part of the system.[170]
Conclusions
83. While noting the Secretary of State's caution,
we see advantages in the community college model: a route into
higher education for those in groups traditionally not well represented
in higher education; the opportunity for those with family responsibilities
to enter higher education in their locality; and the facility
to move on with the possibility to transfer credits earned. Translation
of the model to England could lead to an enhanced role for further
education colleges to provide higher education. As we have noted,
286 further education colleges already provide some form of higher
education with further education colleges in England teaching
around 11% of the students studying on courses leading to higher
education and higher level qualifications.[171]
In our view, if the community college credit system model operating
in the US were adopted in England, it would provide much greater
flexibility in higher education in this country, which will be
essential to widening participation. We consider that one route
to the introduction of the model is to expand the provision of
higher education in further education colleges. As we have
already noted at paragraph 39, further education colleges in England
contribute more than a third of entrants to higher education and
teach one in eight of the undergraduate population; and they are
at the centre of policies to increase and widen participation
in higher education. We conclude that the Government should
accelerate the expansion of higher education provided in further
education colleges.
84. We as a Committee favour the widening of the
access routes into higher education but we also recognise that
opening the gates wider will assist no-one if those admitted have
the cognitive ability but not the learning skills to take full
advantage of the benefits of higher education. When the Government
comes to set out its vision for higher education over the next
10-15 years it is essential that it explains how students with
the required cognitive abilities but without matching learning
skills will be supported and assisted. The Government needs to
set out how it wishes to see the current foundation degree arrangements
evolveparticularly, how many entrants to higher education
it expects to commence with a foundation year and what financial
support they can expect. We recommend that the Government take
immediate steps to introduce a credit transfer system which will
allow credit transfer and portability between tertiary education
institutions in Englandthat is, between further and higher
and within higher education institutions.
85. As Professor Brown pointed out, setting up a
system of credit transfer would require an examination of quality
assurance.[172] We
examine quality and standards in chapter 5. But we consider it
is essential that for a system of credit transfer to operate satisfactorily
the standard of credits earned by a student in say, a foundation
year at one institution, would need to be recognised across the
higher education sector, to enable that student to move on within
higher education more widely. Higher education institutions accepting
students with credits from another institution have to have confidence
in the standards of the credits. In our view, a prerequisite
for a system of credit transfer is a national system that validates
quality assurance and the standards of credits earned by students.
COMPLETION OF COURSES
86. If greater credit transfer and portability across
higher education institutions were to be introduced, the higher
education sector would have to put in place arrangements to follow
students through to the completion of their courses. We were concerned
to be informed by Professor Longden of Liverpool Hope University
that failure to complete courses was often not, in his view, seen
within parts of the sector as an institutional problem but was
seen rather as the student's problem. He advised that it was "about
saying to both parties that there is an element contributed by
the student [
] but there is also quite a considerable element
which is the responsibility of the institution to pick up and
to do something about reducing its impact."[173]
87. We acknowledge, as Universities UK pointed out,
that completion rates for UK students remain well above the average
for other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD).[174]
According to the OECD, the UK ranks fifth in terms of first-degree
completion rates out of the 23 countries that report these data[175]
(which, when the age participation rate is taken into account,
results in the UK having one of the highest completion rates per
thousand population in the world). There is, however, no room
for complacency. We note that the former DIUS was committed to
cutting rates of non-completion and that £245.9 million of
the HEFCE's £356.3 million widening participation allocations
for 2007-08 "were focused directly on improving retention
rates".[176] The
data may not, however, present the full picture. The English data
do not, for example, include part-time students who have higher
non-completion rates than full-time students.[177]
We were concerned that a recent HEFCE study showed that only 39%
of part-time students who began a first degree programme in 1996-97
at a higher education institution in the UK (other than the Open
University) completed their degree within 11 academic years.[178]
88. When we visited universities during the inquiry
we saw that the higher education sector had programmes to help
new students adjust and thereby improve retentionfor example,
courses on essay writing and, in the USA, we were told about pre-admission
intensive writing courses, adjustment programmes, counselling
and mentoring. We conclude that higher education institutions
should both identify and promote good practicefor example,
by systematically collecting and rigorously scrutinising their
own non-completion data across years and across subjects, carrying
out exit interviews and surveys and by developing further their
student personal advice and support systems. We also recommend
that the Government investigate the reasons why the non-completion
rates of part-time students are higher than those for full-time
students and bring forward proposals to reduce the rates.
89. In its written evidence the University of Leicester
made the point that there was "insufficient emphasis on the
evaluation of widening participation activity" and said that:
Much of current evaluation activity tends to
focus on counting the volume of activity rather than the achievement
of outcomes and student progression. Greater use of quantitative
admissions data should be used to gauge success. For example,
the evaluation of the £180m Excellence Challenge scheme,
an ambitious plan launched at the turn of the decade to secure
wider participation and fair access focused heavily on how the
money had enabled HEIs to develop additional activity.[179]
We agree with the University. We recommend that
the Government, when evaluating widening participation, examine
student progression as well as numbers.
90. It is also useful to draw attention to the NAO's
findings on retention. It said that much of what an institution
did was "likely to affect the quality of the student experience
and therefore student success and retention. There were two especially
important areas where we concluded that an institution can target
their work and make a difference. These were:
- getting to know their students
and how, generally, they felt about their particular course of
study and the culture and amenities offered in the institution;
and
- developing a positive approach to retention-related
activities that recognised how they could also improve student
success, and so attract students to take up services who might
otherwise not do so."[180]
The NAO's conclusions rang true with what several
students told us.[181]
For example, Lucy Davidson told us:
If [the university does not] care about the people
within it, you might as well not have any of it. I personally
have experienced this. I'm in the first year of my nursing diploma
course. My daughter was diagnosed with a very serious illness
and that was when I discovered what a good university I am at.
My facilitator gave me her mobile phone number, was phoning me
at the hospital and I had all the support of the university, support
for placement, and it has enabled me to stay on my course. Nursing
is something I've wanted to do for ten years. I love it because
it's rewarding, it's different every day and you're part of a
team. So basically Anglia Ruskin has proved itself to me.[182]
We conclude that one of the main supports to securing
wider participation is a comprehensive system of pastoral care
and welfare, as well as academic, support for students by each
higher education institution. We recommend that the Government
place a duty of care on higher education institutions to support
their students and require higher education institutions to provide
a comprehensive system of pastoral and welfare support for students
encompassing, for example, pre-admission courses, adjustment programmes,
counselling and mentoring.
Guidance and information
CAREERS GUIDANCE
91. We also asked about the quality of careers guidance.
The evidence we received from students about the quality of careers
advice gave us grounds for concern when we heard the following:
- They did not encourage me to
come to John Moores personally. When I told the careers adviser
I was applying for John Moores he said, "I have never heard
of that university before." What did the university do to
get students to go?[183]
- A lot of the push at our school was [
]
that they wanted a take of how many students went to Cambridge
and Oxford.[184]
- We used to have a careers lesson once a week
in that they assessed the current subjects that you were studying
for A-level and then pointed you in the direction of which courses
were suitable. We also used certain internet websites to help
us make a choice. [
]My school definitely chose [higher education]
first. [The student added that he received no vocational advice.][185]
- [T]he school I was at definitely pushed towards
higher education for the majority of students; in the cases where
they saw it was not appropriate or there was a sensible other
route they would push other people that way, but certainly as
far as I was concerned they never really pushed any other options.
As far as selection of the university and the school pushing me
towards one or the other, there was not really any help [
]
They misunderstood what I was going to university for; they thought
I wanted to become a mechanic and not an engineer, so consequently
tried to push me away from that.[186]
92. Moreover, during our informal meeting with a
group of students at Liverpool Hope University one student identified
a need for careers service advisers to inform Level 3 NVQ students
that this qualification provided an access route to university.[187]
When we met students informally at the University of Oxford
and Imperial College London we were given a similarly mixed picture.
It is worth noting that several students in these groups made
the point that an opportunity to visit the university and meet
students and tutors was crucial to their decisions to apply to
university and even to accept offers from particular universities.[188]
93. Dr Reid, an academic chemist, told us that his
department selected from a diverse base of applicants and that
the students, "almost invariably, have had very little advice
at school level about what subjects to take at A level".[189]
He said that they knew they were interested, for example, in studying
chemistry but they did not have any mathematics or physics and
they had "never been advised at school level that that might
be a good idea".[190]
The Institute of Physics, in its written memorandum, put these
concerns in a wider context:
The government sets targets for [higher education]
participation regardless of the strategic needs of the country.
As a consequence, university finances have been driven by the
choices of often ill-informed students who have not acquired a
coherent set of post-16 qualifications. The outcome has been massive
student growth in certain areas, for example drama and media studies,
while, as a proportion of all students, science and engineering
have fallen. The notion of a "HE market", in which students
make decisions based on employment opportunity, is deeply flawed.
There is almost no means for any students to obtain neutral and
reliable data about career and salary expectations in different
subject areas and there is an urgent need for such data.[191]
94. These findings were confirmed by the NAO[192]
and the student listening programme set up by DIUS in 2007. Mr
Denham told us:
One of the pieces they did in the beginning was
the complaints about poor quality of information, advice and guidance.
We were quite surprised [
] at the number of students who
are now on university courses who were saying they did not have
enough advice before they went about what course they were going
to do. That is leading to a major piece of work with ourselves
and [the Department for Children, Schools and Families] looking
at the whole issue of information, advice and guidance.[193]
95. We agree with the Institute of Physics. In
our view, it is essential that the strategic needs of the country
for STEM graduates are fully taken into account when the Government
sets targets for the expansion of higher education. The Government
must counteract any tendency within the system propelling young
people to study non-STEM subjects which are perceived to make
admission to university easier. As we noted in chapter 1, one
step it should take is to ensure that any new places funded in
higher education institutions meet the strategic needs of the
country for STEM graduates.
96. The other key step is the quality of careers
guidance and information available. We were disappointed by the
reports of the quality of careers guidance that the students we
met had received at school or college. In many cases the advice
was neither comprehensive, informative nor useful. This an area
that the Leitch Report[194]
examined. It pointed out that research published in 2006 had found
that when applicants had access to effective careers guidance
they tended to make more structured and informed decisions regarding
their education. It had also concluded that too few young people
at age 14 were making the link between careers guidance and their
personal decisions to study certain subjects.[195]
We note that DCSF said in its 2008 Annual Report that it would
"continue to drive up the standard of careers education in
schools through the provision of good practice and training".[196]
The evidence we took on careers guidance reflected some of the
problems that the Leitch Report appears to have identified and
it is too early to form a judgment on the effectiveness of any
reforms flowing from Leitch. We conclude that currently careers
guidance to those at many secondary schools is inadequate. We
consider that careers guidance needs to start at key stage 3 to
advise young people about their choice of GCSEs as this determines
post-16 choice, including entry into higher education. While we
are aware that, following the Government's acceptance of the recommendation
of the Leitch Report changes are planned, we consider that the
Government needs to overhaul, extend and improve the careers guidance
system urgently and to ensure that young people have access to
independent and also to specialist advice from industry and academia,
including students. When the changes have been made, we recommend
that the Government put in place clear procedures for monitoring
the quality of careers guidance in schools and colleges to ensure
that the improvement in quality and reach that is required has
been achieved.
COURSE INFORMATION
97. In responding to the e-consultation students
who considered applying for courses at several universities explained
how they reached decisions on which university to apply. The responses
included:
- consulting a guide such as
the Times Good University Guide, in particular the ratings for
research, pass rates, student satisfaction and figures about graduate
employment;
- for the preferred universities, examination of
the entrance criteria, course content, how the course would be
taught, contact time and access to tutors and the facilities available;
and
- contact with the selected universities either
through open days or at interview. When visiting a university
one student commented: "[I made] sure I spoke to graduates,
teachers, lecturers, current students and people in the world
of politics [where] I intend to focus my future career in. I found
their opinions very helpful and much more accurate than my peers,
[which] played on popular beliefs [and] were easily unfounded.[197]
CODE OF PRACTICE ON INFORMATION
FOR PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS
98. We looked at a small sample of undergraduate
prospectuses available on-line. They appeared to show that little
or no information was provided about the nature or degree of contact
which students could expect with staff or, for example, how many
students would be in a group or who would teach themacademics
or research students. Nor did universities appear to give students
a clear idea about the work they would be expected to undertake,
for example, in terms of numbers of essays, projects or assignments
they would undertake during each year of study. From the evidence
we took from students and from the published evidence on the study
demands placed on studentssee paragraph 221 and followingit
was clear that time in lectures, tutorials and personal study
varied between courses.[198]
Whilst that is to be expected, what we found surprising was the
variation in student effort required between higher education
institutions for similar subjects. In addition, the size of tutorial
and lecture groups varied and whether students were taught by
academic staff or postgraduate students. All these issues matter
to students. The importance of information about time commitments
is, for example, critical for mature students. As one pointed
out to us: "Getting a clear idea of the hours involved and
when lectures would be was incredibly important to me because
of child care".[199]
We conclude that it would assist prospective students if higher
education institutions presented in a consistent format, which
facilitates cross-institutional comparisons, the time a typical
undergraduate student could expect to spend in attending lectures
and tutorials, in personal study and, for science courses, in
laboratories during a week. In addition, universities should indicate
the likely size of tutorial groups and the numbers at lectures
and the extent to which students may be taught by graduate students.
We conclude that the higher education sector should develop a
code of practice on information for prospective students setting
out the range, quality and level of information that higher education
institutions should make available to prospective undergraduate
students. Information about bursaries could also be one of
the items required to be included by the code of practice on information
for prospective studentssee paragraph 131.
National Student Survey
99. The National Student Survey, conducted annually
since 2005, runs across all publicly funded higher education institutions
in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and participating higher
education institutions in Scotland. Additionally, since 2008,
further education colleges with directly funded higher education
students in England[200]
have been eligible to participate. The survey asks final year
undergraduates and students in their final year of a course leading
to undergraduate credits or qualifications to provide feedback
on their courses in a nationally recognised format. There are
22 questions, relating to the following aspects of the student
learning experience:
- Teaching on My Course
- Assessment and Feedback
- Academic Support
- Organisation and Management
- Learning Resources
- Personal Development
- Overall Satisfaction.[201]
100. We commend the introduction of the National
Student Survey and fully support the concept of seeking the views
of students through such a survey. The Government pointed
out that the most recent results from that survey show overall
satisfaction remaining above 80%, at 82%.[202]
It also cited an NUS student experience survey which "also
showed high satisfaction levelswith 85% rating the quality
of teaching and learning as good or excellent and 85% pleased
they had chosen to attend university".[203]
Whilst the overall satisfaction remained above 80% in these surveys,
we note that the National Student Survey highlighted areas of
concern and courses that received poor ratings by students across
the whole higher education sector, including, for example, 33
courses at the 1994 and Russell Groups that were ranked below
2,000 in the survey of 2,175 courses.[204]
101. We accept that the National Student Survey
is a good starting point but caution against an over-reliance
on it. The University of Hertfordshire said that there was
"a significant tension" with the National Student Survey
being a tool for improvement and also used in league tables. It
noted that there were "documented instances of abuse (and
probably an additional unknown amount of this activity that is
undetected) because moving higher in the league tables might be
deemed more important than getting students to reflect fairly
on their experience of an institution as part of an enhancement
exercise".[205]
We noted two instances where it was suggested that universities
may be encouraging students filling in the Survey to be positive
about the institution.[206]
In our view, the results of the National Student Survey should
be available to prospective students and the public and we accept
that league tables which include the results of the Survey are
one of the methods by which the results are given a wider audience.
We consider that the tension between use of the Survey as a tool
for improvement within the higher education sector and the use
of its results in league tables can be reduced by strengthening
and guarding its independence and integrity. We conclude that
it is essential to safeguard the independence of the National
Student Survey and recommend that the Higher Education Funding
Council for England, which has responsibility for the Survey,
examine ways to bolster the independence of the survey, including
bringing forward arrangements to provide the NUS with a role in
promoting the integrity of the Survey.
LEAGUE TABLES
102. The issue of university league tables came up
several times during our inquiry. As Gemma Jerome, a student,
explained: "It is helpful for students to be able to navigate
their way through the application process and have the league
tables there to compare institutions".[207]
At the end of the student experiencethat is at the end
of the courseleague tables are used to evaluate degrees,
as another student, Ed Steward, told us:
In terms of the quality of the degree a lot of
how employers see degrees is dictated by the university league
tables, so you have Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and all of that straight
down the line. Employers will say a degree from Oxford, perfect,
the top university in England, but there is a lot more to it and
not enough employers drill down on that data enough to see that
in fact a degree in history may be fantastic at Cambridge but
a degree in sport sciences may be better from Loughborough. Depending
on who you are employing and the background you want them to have,
employers need to drill down on the data more and see that even
though Loughborough may be further down in the league tables specific
degrees from that university may be better than those offered
at Oxford. It is a flaw."[208]
103. We noted that HEFCE had commissioned an investigation
into league tables and their impact on higher education institutions.[209]
In his foreword to the HEFCE Issues Paper published in April 2008
setting out the results of the investigation Professor David Eastwood,
the former Chief Executive of HEFCE said:
League tables are part of the higher education
landscape and the newspaper calendar. They are one of the sources
to which prospective students refer when making choices, and bring
attention to important issues such as 'the student experience',
employability and retention.
The league tables also have a much wider impactfor
example, on institutions' reputations and potentially on the behaviour
of academics, businesses and potential benefactors. Governing
bodies take an interest in them as a means of assessing institutional
performance, sometimes seizing on them in default of other, more
sensitive indicators of institutional performance.
There clearly is a demand for league tables,
but there are also questions about their quality, impact and possible
perverse incentives. Concerns have been raised about the compilers'
choice of indicators, the validity of the methodologies which
are employed, the transparency of the processes and the robustness
of the rankings. [
] This research throws a considerable
amount of light on the approaches and limitations of different
league tables and the way universities and colleges respond to
them. We hope the debate will lead to improvements to league table
methodologies; enable users to better understand the complexities
of the league tables, and avoid misunderstanding them; and to
help higher education institutions develop approaches that help
them satisfy the legitimate information needs of their stakeholders.[210]
League tables also have an international reach as
universities in the UK are increasingly compared with institutions
across the world and help in attracting overseas students.
104. In our view, it is a case of acknowledging that
league tables are a fact of life and we welcome the interest that
HEFCE has taken in league tables and their impact on the higher
education sector. We have not carried out an exhaustive examination
of league tables but on the basis of the evidence we received
we offer the following views, conclusions and recommendations
as a contribution to the debate on league tables which HEFCE has
sought to stimulate and to improve the value of the tables to,
and usefulness for, students. We conclude that league tables
are a permanent fixture and recommend that the Government seek
to ensure that as much information is available as possible from
bodies such as HEFCE and HESA, to make the data they contain meaningful,
accurate and comparable. Where there are shortcomings in the
material available we consider that the Government should explore
filling the gap. We give two examples. First, the results from
the National Student Survey are produced in a format which can
be, and is, incorporated into league tables.[211]
It appears to us therefore that additional information or factors
taken into account in the National Student Survey would flow through
to, and assist those consulting, league tables. To assist people
applying to higher education we recommend that the Government
seek to expand the National Student Survey to incorporate factors
which play a significant part in prospective applicants' decisionsfor
example, the extent to which institutions encourage students to
engage in non-curricula activities and work experience and offer
careers advice.
105. Second, Professor Driscoll from Middlesex University
considered that league tables neglected "the contribution
that universities that have focused on widening participation,
like Middlesex, make to raising skills and educational levels
in this country".[212]
In other words, the National Student Survey as presently constituted
does not assess the "value added" offered by individual
institutions. We recommend that the Government produce a metric
to measure higher education institutions' contribution to widening
participation, use the metric to measure the contribution made
by institutions and publish the results in a form which could
be incorporated into university league tables.
55 Universities and Colleges Admissions Service Back
56
Ev 453, para 4.2 Back
57
Ev 453, paras 4.4-4.5 Back
58
Ev 454, para 4.6 Back
59
Q 58 Back
60
See para 6. Back
61
DIUS, World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills
in England, Cm 7181, July 2007, p 9; DIUS, Investing in our Future:
Departmental Report 2008, Cm 7392, May 2008, p 68 Back
62
Ev 454, paras 4.10-4.13; see also Ev 311 (Million+) paras 3, 7
and Ev 236 (The Inquiry Into The Future For Lifelong Learning),
para 2. Back
63
Ev 438, para 13 Back
64
Q 3 (Professor Ebdon) Back
65
Campaign for Learning, Higher Education and the Cuckoo In The
Nest: Getting beyond the fixation with full-time study by young
people, December 2008, para 8 Back
66
Q 80 Back
67
Campaign for Learning, Higher Education and the Cuckoo In The
Nest: Getting beyond the fixation with full-time study by young
people, December 2008, para 8 Back
68
Ev 323, para 8; see also "Patterns in higher education: living
at home", HEFCE 2009/20. Back
69
Foundation Degrees are higher education qualifications that combine
academic study with workplace learning. They have been designed
jointly by universities, colleges and employers, and are available
in a range of work-related subjects (from Directgov website, www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/QualificationsExplained/DG_10039022).
The minutes from Foundation Degree
Forward's Board Meeting of 19 February 2009 state that "HEFCE
has released data indicating that over 87,000 students are enrolled
on Foundation degree courses in 2008-09. This is a substantial
growth on last year's figures and means the 100,000 target is
within reach (and possibly achievable a year early)." www.fdf.ac.uk/about_fdf/management_board/
Back
70
Ev 323, para 8 Back
71
"Supporting higher education in further education colleges:
Policy, practice and prospects", HEFCE 2009/5, p 8; and see
also para 1. Back
72
"Realising the Potential: A review of the future role of
further education colleges", Sir Andrew Foster, November
2005, www.dcsf.gov.uk/furthereducation/uploads/documents/foster-02-standard-font.doc
Back
73
"Foster Review of FE 'think piece' The higher education role
of further education colleges", Gareth Parry, University
of Sheffield", www.dcsf.gov.uk/furthereducation/uploads/documents/Higher_EducationinFE_Gareth_Parry.doc
Back
74
OFFA, Annual Report and Accounts 2007-08, HC (2007-08) 513, p
10 Back
75
Ev 287, para 1 Back
76
Ev 167 Back
77
Ev 167-68 Back
78
"Another A-level record, another round of qualms", The
Independent, 16 August 2007 Back
79
A-level results published by the Joint Council for Qualifications
on 14 August 2008 at www.jcq.org.uk/homepage.cfm
Back
80
Q 27 (Professor Grant) Back
81
HC 370-ii, Q 189 Back
82
HEFCE, Schooling effects on higher education achievement: further
analysis-entry at 19, February 2005/09, para 6 Back
83
Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group, Fair admissions
to higher education: recommendations for good practice, September
2004 Back
84
Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group, Fair admissions
to higher education: recommendations for good practice, September
2004, para 5.1, Principle 1 Back
85
Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group, Fair admissions
to higher education: recommendations for good practice, September
2004, para C4; see also paras 4.4, 4.5, 6.6, B9, B11 and B17. Back
86
Ev 255, para 1.6 Back
87
Q 390; see also Qq 391 and 401. Back
88
Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group, Fair admissions
to higher education: recommendations for good practice, September
2004, para B9 Back
89
Q 33 Back
90
Ev 254, para 1.2 Back
91
QAA, "Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality
and standards in higher education Section 10: Admissions to higher
education", September 2006 Back
92
Q 401 Back
93
Q 404 Back
94
As above Back
95
Qq 405, 407 Back
96
See para 12. Back
97
Q 405 Back
98
Q 434 Back
99
Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group, Fair admissions
to higher education: recommendations for good practice, September
2004, para 2.1 Back
100
"The Educational Backgrounds of Leading Lawyers, Journalists,
Vice Chancellors, Politicians, Medics and Chief Executives",
The Sutton Trust submission to the Milburn Commission on access
to the professions, March 2009, p 8 Back
101
The Sutton Trust defines this group as the 13 universities that
came top of an average ranking of newspaper league tables in 2000.
They are: Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Imperial
College London, LSE, Nottingham, Oxford, St Andrews, UCL, Warwick
and York. Back
102
This figure appears incorrect as ST13 includes Oxford and Cambridge,
the total for which is 45. Back
103
"The Educational Backgrounds of Leading Lawyers, Journalists,
Vice Chancellors, Politicians, Medics and Chief Executives",
The Sutton Trust submission to the Milburn Commission on access
to the professions, March 2009, p 9 Back
104
The Sutton Trust defines this group as the 13 universities that
came top of an average ranking of newspaper league tables in 2000.
They are: Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Imperial
College London, LSE, Nottingham, Oxford, St Andrews, UCL, Warwick
and York. Back
105
Qq 405-06 Back
106
Ev 405 Back
107
Ev 503 Back
108
National Audit Office, Widening participation in higher education,
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Session 2007-2008,
HC 725 Back
109
National Audit Office, Staying the course: the retention of students
in higher education, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General,
Session 2006-2007, HC 616 Back
110
DIUS, unpublished analysis; PricewaterhouseCoopers/Universities
UK, Research Report, The economic benefits of a degree,
2007; cited by the NAO at Ev 512, para 3. Back
111
Ev 503, para 3 Back
112
Ev 505, para 8 Back
113
The NAO report was published in June 2008, but its field work
is likely to have been carried out before that date. Back
114
Ev 505, para 8 Back
115
Ev 505, para 10 Back
116
Q 39 Back
117
L Feinstein, Pre-school Educational Inequality? British children
in the 1970 cohort, London Center for Economic Performance, 1999;
cited by the Russell Group at Ev 401. Back
118
Department for Education and Skills, Youth Cohort Study: The
Activities and Experiences of 16 Year Olds in England and Wales,
2002 at wttp://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000382/V5sfr04-2003.pdf;
cited by the Russell Group at Ev 404. Back
119
Joint Council for Qualifications (2008): 14 August 2008 press
conference; cited by the Russell Group at Ev 405. Back
120
Ev 404-05 Back
121
Table showing progression to Level 3 at 19 by year 11 attainment
(19 in 2008 cohort, numbers rounded to nearest thousand,
rates to nearest whole number)
Year 11 GCSEs at Grades A*-C (including GNVQ equivalents)
| Total
| L3 at 19
| L3 at 19 rate
|
0
| 155,000
| 7,000
| 4%
|
1
| 45,000
| 6,000
| 13%
|
2
| 31,000
| 6,000
| 21%
|
3
| 27,000
| 8,000
| 29%
|
4
| 32,000
| 10,000
| 32%
|
5
| 31,000
| 13,000
| 42%
|
6
| 31,000
| 15,000
| 50%
|
7
| 34,000
| 20,000
| 59%
|
8
| 44,000
| 31,000
| 70%
|
9
| 75,000
| 63,000
| 84%
|
10+
| 143,000
| 129,000
| 90%
|
Total
| 647,000
| 308,000
| 48%
|
Source: DCSF, Matched administrative
data, 19 in 2008 cohort; supplied in unpublished e-mail Back
122
Q 89 Back
123
As above Back
124
DCSF, Promoting achievement, valuing success: A strategy for 14-19
qualifications, March 2008, para 21 Back
125
NAO, Widening participation in higher education, HC (2007-08)
725, paras 1 and 7; see also Ev 505 (NAO), para 11 ff. Back
126
"Better higher education performance indicators", HEFCE
News Release, 19 July 2007 Back
127
Department for Education and Skills, The future of higher education,
Cm 5735, pp 5 and 92 Back
128
Q 400 Back
129
As above Back
130
"Table T1b Young full-time undergraduate entrants 2007/08",
HESA, www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1434&Itemid=141
Back
131
The latest figures in the table reproduced above show a 16% disparity,
rather than the 12% cited by Professor Beer. Back
132
HC 370-ii, Q 179 Back
133
HC 370-ii, Q 181 Back
134
HC 370-ii, Q 182 Back
135
Ev 506, para 21 Back
136
The Lincolnshire Access Initiative at the University of Oxford
has been running since 2000, and aims to encourage applications
to Oxford from students in Lincolnshire, North and NE Lincolnshire.
The initiative operates on behalf of the university as a whole,
and it also works jointly with Cambridge University to encourage
applications from all types of schools and colleges in the region,
but particularly those from the maintained sector. The initiative
also aims to raise the higher education aspirations of both sixth
formers and younger students. Back
137
The Pimlico Connection is a student volunteering activity that
has been running at Imperial College since 1975. It offers state
schools in London (both primary and secondary) that are close
to the main college campus, the chance to have Imperial College
undergraduates assisting in science, maths, ICT or D&T classes
on a Wednesday afternoon between November and March every year.
As well as providing assistance they act as role models. See also
Ev 157 (Informal meeting with staff at Imperial College London). Back
138
Qq 388-91 Back
139
Q 392 Back
140
Ev 304, paras 8-9. The submission explained that:
The Liverpool Hope University STARS
project is a Compact Scheme where 120 year-12 students from 22
local schools work with Hope undergraduate student mentors in
a programme of monthly contact, special events and a four-day
project focused on writing for assessment at A level. The programme
focuses on the synoptic A level paper and reflective writing,
as well as transferable competencies related to university assessment
criteria.
At the University of Derby, the first
UK integrated dual-sector institution, there is a further education
college offering A levels on over 16 subjects, and a Compact Scheme
with over 50 partner schools, whose students made over 11,000
individual applications to study at HE at the University in 2006-07.
Over 90% achieve the grades they need and over 70% go on to enrol.
The Compact Scheme employs undergraduate students as mentors and
Compact Assistants in schools and colleges (www.derby.ac.uk/fpl/partnerships),
as well as operating an award-winning web site providing information
about choosing courses, applying to university, study skills and
being an effective student. Back
141
University College Plymouth St Mark and St John Back
142
Q 82 Back
143
Q 38 (Professor Ebdon) Back
144
Ev 322, para 4 Back
145
HC 370-iii, Q 409 Back
146
Q 111 Back
147
As above Back
148
As above Back
149
"Realising the Potential: A review of the future role of
further education colleges", Sir Andrew Foster, November
2005, www.dcsf.gov.uk/furthereducation/uploads/documents/foster-02-standard-font.doc
Back
150
"Foster Review of FE 'think piece' The higher education role
of further education colleges", Gareth Parry, University
of Sheffield", www.dcsf.gov.uk/furthereducation/uploads/documents/Higher_EducationinFE_Gareth_Parry.doc
Back
151
See also para 149. Back
152
Q 79 Back
153
Section 19 of the Further Education and Training Act 2007 enables
the Privy Council to grant powers to award foundation degrees
to further education institutions in England. Back
154
Ev 323, para 8 Back
155
Q 79 Back
156
Q 393; see also Q 486. Back
157
Q 393 Back
158
Ev 302 Back
159
Ev 303, para 2 Back
160
Keverne Smith, School to university: an investigation into the
experience of first-year students of English at British Universities,
Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 2004, Vol 3, No 1, pp
81-93 Back
161
Gillian Ballinger, Bridging the gap between A level and degree:
some observations on managing the transitional stage in the study
of English Literature, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education,
2003, Vol 2, No 1, pp 99-109 Back
162
"A level students unable to write essays", The Times,
15 August 2007 Back
163
Ev 303, para 1 Back
164
Ev 303, para 3 Back
165
Ev 236, section 1 Back
166
HEPI, Credit Accumulation and Transfer, and the Bologna Process:
an Overview, October 2004, pp 22-25 Back
167
Q 442 (Professor Driscoll) Back
168
Q 503 Back
169
As above Back
170
Q 506 Back
171
Ev 299 (Learning and Skills Council), paras 5-6; HEFCE, Supporting
higher education in further education colleges Policy, practice
and prospects, HEFCE 2009/05, March 2009, p 8. Back
172
Q 395 Back
173
HC 370-i, Q 68 Back
174
Ev 438, para 13; see also Ev 508 (NAO), para 31 ff. Back
175
DIUS, Investing in our Future: Departmental Report 2008, Cm 7392,
May 2008, p 70 Back
176
As above Back
177
HEFCE, Part-time first degree study Entry and completion, May
2009/18 Back
178
HEFCE, Part-time first degree study Entry and completion, May
2009/18, para 55 Back
179
Ev 287, para 3; see also Ev 182 (Professor Gorard) Back
180
Ev 508, para 30 Back
181
As well as the example cited: Q 184 (Ms Donaghy); Q 203 (Mr Sarfo-Kantanka);
Q 230 (Mr Raja); Q 237 (Mr Harris); Qq 239 and 251 (Mr Pollard);
Q 247 (Mr Harris); HC 370-i, Q 120 (Mr Nussey); HC 370-i, Q 135
(Ms Rowley); HC 370-ii, Q 300 (Mr Andrews); HC 370-ii, Q 324 (Ms
Pitt); HC 370-ii, Q 324 (Mr Child); HC 370-ii, Q 325 (Ms Edwards) Back
182
Q 225 Back
183
HC 370-i, Q 106 Back
184
HC 370-i, Q 108 Back
185
HC 370-ii, Qq 302-05 Back
186
HC 370-ii, Q 308 Back
187
Ev 160 Back
188
Ev 162, Ev 158 Back
189
Q 486 Back
190
As above Back
191
Ev 230, para 5 Back
192
Ev 508, para 25 Back
193
Q 539 Back
194
See para 6. Back
195
HM Treasury, Leitch review of skills: Prosperity for all in the
global economy-world class skills, Final Report, 2006, para 6.16 Back
196
DCSF, Departmental Report 2008, Cm 7391, May 2006, p 47
Back
197
Ev 168-69 Back
198
Qq 195-199; HC 370-i, Qq 119-135; HC 370-ii, Q 322; Ev 158-59
(Informal meeting with students at Imperial College London); Ev
160 (Informal meeting with Liverpool Hope students); Ev 164 (Informal
meeting with University of Oxford students) Back
199
HC 370-ii, Q 310 (Ms Edwards) Back
200
See footnote 3. Back
201
Information taken from the website of the National Student Survey
at www.thestudentsurvey.com/. Back
202
Ev 178, para 39 Back
203
As above Back
204
"Angry students expose worst-taught degrees", The
Sunday Times, 17 May 2009 Back
205
Ev 294, para 16 Back
206
Q 416; "'A hotchpotch of subjectivity' the National
Student Survey was a key indicator in the Guardian's university
league tables. But is it fair?", The Guardian, 19
May 2009 Back
207
HC 370-iii, Q 436 Back
208
HC 370-iii, Q 431 Back
209
HEFCE, Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? League
tables and their impact on higher education institutions in England,
Report to HEFCE by the Centre for Higher Education Research and
Information (CHERI), Open University, and Hobsons Research, HEFCE
Issues Paper, April 2008/14, p 4 Back
210
HEFCE, Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? League
tables and their impact on higher education institutions in England,
Report to HEFCE by the Centre for Higher Education Research and
Information (CHERI), Open University, and Hobsons Research, HEFCE
Issues Paper, April 2008/14 Back
211
"Good University Guide 2010: How the tables work", The
Times, 3 June 2009, stated: "The National Student Survey
(NSS) was the source of the Student Satisfaction data. This was
an initiative undertaken by the Funding Councils for England,
Northern Ireland and Wales designed, as an element of the quality
assurance for higher education, to inform prospective students
and their advisers in choosing what and where to study. The survey
encompasses the views of final year students on the quality of
their courses". Back
212
Q 416 Back
|