CHAPTER 5: Quality, standards and benchmarks |
108. In 2009, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
told the House of Commons BIS Committee: "the quality of
the education offered by UK institutions is its strength and the
basis of its strong reputation".
Many others have made the same point to us.
However, in 2002 the Roberts Review looked at the question of
supply and demand and concluded that shortages in some areas related
to quality, not quantity, of graduates, stressing that there was
a lack of graduates with appropriate general and transferrable
skills (otherwise known as "employability skills"see
paragraphs 114-116), or the required breadth of knowledge in their
technical or scientific field.
These conclusions are mirrored in more recent reports from BIS
and others, and also in the evidence we received.
Given that the mismatch in supply and demand for STEM graduates
relates in part to a lack of high quality graduates in many sectors,
not necessarily in the overall number, we decided to look at how
quality is assessed and at the mechanisms for improving quality.
These issues are particularly important given proposals to open
up degree-awarding powers and allowing the title of "university"
to be used by more providers.
109. At present, quality assurance of degrees
is the responsibility of a number of bodies including HEIs, HEFCE,
QAA, and Government. However, individual institutions are autonomous
organisations and, as such, have primary responsibility for academic
standards and quality.
QAA provides a means of external assurance to this process.
110. Under the HE reforms, it is envisaged that
studentsmaking decisions based on the course information
provided by HEIswill play a greater role in driving up
quality. According to the Government, "the future of higher
education is moving to a model where supply and demand will operate
in a more transparent market. Students will demand better information
about the quality of their degrees, and how these will lead to
their chosen careers. Universities will need to respond, particularly
in STEM where there is greater correlation between specific industry
needs and the content and skills taught".
Employers and Government also have a role to play.
111. Although we consider both undergraduate
and postgraduate provision in this chapter, we also look specifically
at the role that the Research Councils and HEFCE play in providing
quality assurance at the postgraduate level. We also look at the
move to doctoral provision through Doctoral Training Centres (DTCs)
and away from the supply of doctoral studentships related to single
Definitions of quality and how
it is measured
112. Quality can often mean different things
to different people.
Defining "quality" and its measurement is, therefore,
an important starting point to the debate. The QAA makes a distinction
between "standards" and "quality":
- Standardthe level of achievement
that a student has to reach to gain an academic award (for example,
- Qualitya way of describing how well the
learning opportunities available to students are managed to help
them to achieve their award. It is about making sure that appropriate
and effective teaching, support, assessment and learning opportunities
are provided for students.
113. In 1993, John Biggs defined the three dimensions
of quality in the '3P' model as "presage", "process"
and "product" (see Box 2). "Presage"
defines the context that is set before students start learning,
such as the quality of the student or teacher; "process"
defines variables that affect the student's learning experience;
and "products" relate to the outcomes of that learning.
In our view, the quality of a degree is dependent on all three
factors to ensure that high quality graduates leave HE with the
right skills and knowledge to prepare them for work..
Measurements of quality
In 2010, the HEA published a report entitled Dimensions of Quality which critiqued different quality measures used within HE. They grouped them, in accordance with John Biggs' '3P' model, into "presage", "process" and "products", although they are related to each other.
- "Presage" variables are described as those that exist within a university context before a student starts learning including resources or the quality of student or teacher.
- "Process" variables are described as those that characterise what is going on in teaching and learning and include class size, the amount of class contact and the extent of feedback to students.
- "Product" variables concern the outcomes of the educational process, such as student performance, retention and employability.
The report concluded that measures of educational process are good predictors of educational gain. Such measures are also considered to be more comparable than product or presage variables across HEIs which have very different mission statements.
Good process measures of quality include class size, level of student engagement, who undertakes teaching and the quantity and quality of student feedback. The best variables concern pedagogical practices that engender student engagement.
The report also concluded that teachers who have teaching qualifications have been found to be rated more highly by their students than teachers who have no such qualifications.
In terms of outcomes it was noted that there was considerable scope to assess work submitted by students as more direct indicators of educational quality than proxy measures such as thos derived from National Student Survey scores.
114. The terms "quality" and "employability
skills" are often confused. "Employability skills"
are defined by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) as "a set
of achievements, (skills, understandings and personal attributes)
that make graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful
in their chosen occupations, which benefits themselves, the workforce,
the community and the economy".
Although an HE system should not concentrate solely on training
students for the employment marketit is just one of the
objectives of the sectoras we said in Chapter 4, a
high quality education and training for employment are not incompatible
and graduates should be leaving HE with the right skills for employment.
Imperial College London told us, for example, that:
"A high quality research-led and laboratory-based or maths
education, equips students to think critically and independently,
and to foster the analytical skills necessary to provide solutions
to economic, social and industrial problems. Such skills are not
only necessary for careers in traditional STEM industries, but
are requirements for a variety of business sectors."
115. Employability skills should also include other attributes,
or "softer skills", within the outcome measures for
a course, such as awareness of the business environment and communication
116. One question we encountered was: how accurately
can supply be matched to demand in a diverse economy? The Institution
of Engineering and Technology (IET), for example, told us that
"while large companies have the capacity to recruit 'raw'
graduates and provide training this is generally not the case
for SMEs [Small and Medium-sized Enterprises] who need skilled
graduates who are equipped to 'hit the ground running' and contribute
immediately in the workplace".
However, as Vectura observed, there is a danger of going too far
in trying to meet all the employability needs identified by employers"since
each company will have different requirements it is not particularly
practical to try and match supply and demand in this way".
Employers have a role in continuing to develop the skills of graduates
in employment, and HEIs have a role to help them do this. But
it is not the role of HEIs to tailor degree courses specifically
to individual companies. Rather, it is to ensure that graduates
emerge with the right skill set to adapt and grow. The role of
employers is also to define the basic skill set of an employable
graduate or postgraduate. We consider how employers should be
involved in setting the skills outcomes for courses in paragraphs
THE MEASUREMENT OF QUALITY
117. The quality of a degree course can be measured
through a number of variables including direct learning outcomes
or looking at the processes which have been linked with high quality
provision. Measures can also be direct or proxies of quality.
118. The Government's Higher Education White
Paper, Students at the Heart of the System, published in
2011, proposed that HEFCE should become a lead regulator to promote
and protect the interests of students and the wider public, taking
over from the Government the function of granting degree- awarding
powers. In evidence, Government said: "the UK approach to
quality assurance is highly regarded and the revised arrangements
for Institutional Review introduced in September 2011 by the QAA
have a stronger focus on quality enhancement and on involving
The HE reforms will not involve a change to the review process
but propose a move to a more risk-based approach to quality assurance,
building on the current system but focusing QAA effort on areas
of most impact.
119. BIS has consulted on these proposed changes,
which include proposals to introduce a sanction to suspend, or
remove, degree-awarding powers where quality or academic standards
fall below acceptable thresholds. Additionally, HEFCE are currently
consulting on the triggers which would prompt QAA to carry out
an out-of-cycle investigation, as well as the frequency of review,
for implementation in 2013-14. The proposals include greater powers
for students to instigate out-of-cycle reviews if they have concerns
about quality. Under the HE reforms, QAA will also look at the
provision of information about the quality and standards of academic
programmes. A QAA consultation will follow the HEFCE consultation
later in the year.
120. The Government's response to the Higher
Education White Paper consultation stated that they will "not
at this stage be seeking to introduce changes to primary legislation"
but they would move their reform agenda forward "primarily
through non-legislative means".
It is not clear to us, therefore, if Parliament will be given
the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed changes to quality
assurance and HEFCE's power. We recommend that the Government
explain in their response to this report what opportunity Parliament
will be given to scrutinise further the proposed changes to quality
assurance, as set out in the Higher Education White Paper. The
Government should also set out a timetable for when the changes
will take place and outline the form they will take.
The role of the QAA and of HEIs
in driving up quality
121. HEFCE has a statutory responsibility for
quality assurance under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
They do this, by contract, through the QAA, which reviews HEIs
in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The QAA is independent of both Government and HEIs. It is funded
by subscriptions from universities and colleges and through contracts
with the HE funding bodies. They report on quality assurance by
visiting universities and colleges to review how well they are
fulfilling their responsibilities. They also offer guidance on
maintaining and improving quality assurance processes and developing
course delivery through the Academic Infrastructure.
122. QAA HEI reviews focus on the standards of
HE awards (set out in the Quality Code which covers undergraduate
and postgraduate courses), the quality of the learning experience
(for example, the provision of learning opportunities), the provision
of information about the quality and standards of academic programmes,
and the commitment to quality enhancement. For example, QAA assesses
whether universities set and maintain UK-agreed benchmark statements
or threshold standards for HE awards as set out in the Framework
for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern
These are reviewed, as required, in collaboration with institutions,
and professional, statutory and regulatory bodies. The FHEQ also
contains a doctoral qualification descriptor which summarises
"the research-specific and personal attributes agreed by
the higher education sector as a minimum level of achievement
for any doctoral graduate" to "achieve equivalence of
academic standards across doctoral awards by summarising the key
attributes expected of a doctoral graduate." There is a similar
descriptor for Masters degrees.
123. In 2009, in evidence to the House of Commons
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (IUSS) Committee,
the QAA emphasised their process-based approach to quality assurance:
"we visit institutions to conduct our audits, make judgements
and publish reports, but we are not an inspectorate or a regulator
and do not have statutory powers. We aim to ensure that institutions
have effective processes in place to secure their academic standards,
but we do not judge the standards themselves".
When questioned on why they looked at processes not outcomes,
the QAA said that quality outcomes were included in the Quality
Code, which was a "framework of benchmarks, which sets standards
and provide programme specifications for individual courses
together with codes of practice about key areas of university
activity". They were "responsible for maintaining that",
which they did "in partnership not only with institutions
but also with relevant professional bodies, with expertise sometimes
from employers and, increasingly, with input from students as
124. The QAA is responsible for measuring the
processes by which quality is assured and for facilitating the
development of outcome measures through the development of the
standards and benchmarks. In our view, however, this is not enough
to drive up quality when the standards and benchmarks are based
on attaining a threshold level and allow no assessment of quality
provision above the threshold. When asked if degrees from two
universities were comparable in terms of the standards required,
Anthony McClaran, Chief Executive of the QAA, said: "we are
talking about the setting of threshold standards. We are not talking
about the distance beyond the threshold that any particular qualification
HEA, in their report Dimensions of Quality, describe the
absence of comparability of degree standards as a major "obstacle
to the interpretation of student performance data".
125. The HEA also noted in their report that
"national agencies have a valuable role to be fulfilled in
supporting the use of valid measures of quality", in effect
seeking to make sure that HEIs are using the best measures of
quality. In our view, they are not fulfilling this need. The QAA
gives little incentive for HEIs to go beyond that threshold of
assessment to drive up quality. The Quality Code sets minimum
standards and benchmark statements, and the QAA then judge HEIs
on the processes they have in place to enable them to meet them,
rather than influencing HEIs to raise standards, improve benchmark
statements and the quality of provision.
126. When challenged on this issue, the QAA said:
"we have another role
which is also about supporting
institutions in the continuous improvement of their quality and
This is achieved through offering suggestions of best practice,
and through themed reports on specific issues. However, we found
little evidence of how such efforts have resulted in an increase
in quality of provision and, in any event, would question whether
it would be possible to do so given that they are only assuring
a minimum threshold standard for courses across the UK with little
incentive to revise benchmark statements.
ENSURING THAT STANDARDS AND BENCHMARKS
ADDRESS SKILLS GAPS IN THE ECONOMY
127. Many undergraduates and postgraduates reportedly
lack the skills and competencies required for employment. The
ABPI told us, for example, that "although the numbers of
STEM students and graduates have been increasing in recent years
many choose to study subjects which do not provide the
appropriate skills for roles in academic or industrial research
and development or for other jobs in industry .... Many will not
have studied the topics which provide essential skills for bioscience
We also learned, to our astonishment, that graduates from
biochemistry can leave HEIs with limited experience of practical
128. All this suggests that there may be scope
for improvement of the quality of graduates through more employer-HE
engagement on course content and other activities (see paragraphs
160-174). We note that a CBI survey in 2011 reported that only
17% of responding employers were engaged with universities to
develop business-relevant STEM courses (albeit higher for some
sectors such as energy and water (53%), construction (30%), science/engineering/IT
is clearly room for improvement.
129. When we asked whether standards and benchmark
statements took sufficient account of employability skills, Mr McClaran
of the QAA assured us that "in terms of the skills that are
built into both the framework of higher education qualifications,
but also, in terms of the subject benchmarks, there certainly
is a description of skills, including the skills that might be
applied by the graduate once they have gone into employment".
This led to us to ask why graduates are failing to acquire basic
130. With regard to employers involvement in
setting standards and benchmarks, we were concerned to see that,
according to the QAA benchmark statements, few industry representatives
are currently involved in setting some benchmarks (for example,
those for engineering). Cogent were also critical of the QAA benchmarks.
Dr Caroline Sudworth, Higher Education Manager from Cogent,
described her experience: "from the work that I have done
with the National HE STEM Programme, we have looked at the CBI
benchmark and employability, mapped it to the QAA benchmark statement,
and there is a lot missing from those particular STEM degrees.
We have tried to discuss this with the QAA but to no avail at
this moment in time, so we would like the QAA to look at how employers
interact with that quality assurance in STEM degrees".
Mr McClaran conceded that he "would be the first to
acknowledge that involvement of employers should expand".
He went on: "That is one of the issues, as we move into the
new review method that we have just begun in England, where we
want to expand the involvement, both of students on the one hand
and employers on the other". He also said that QAA was having
discussions with CHIE about "ways in which we can get expert
input from employers to particular areas".
131. Given the skills gaps that exist in key
areas across the graduate pool, the QAA has a long way to go in
ensuring that employers are sufficiently involved in setting standards
and benchmarks. We recommend that the QAA should do more to recruit
employers, SMEs in particular, to engage with HEIs and take part
in setting QAA standards and benchmark statements. The QAA should
be in a position to report back on how it plans take this recommendation
forward by July 2013.
132. We further recommend that the remit of
the QAA should be reviewed with a view to introducing a system
to assure quality, standards and benchmarks in HEIs that is fit
for purpose. This should include the development (and achievement)
of objectives for the inclusion of employers in the setting of
standards and benchmarks, and a yearly list of thematic problem
areas, accompanied by an action plan, where consistent skills
Funding to develop the employability
skills of postgraduates
133. We recognise that efforts have been made
by HEIs and others to improve the employability skills of undergraduates
and postgraduates. In 2002, the Roberts Review highlighted the
need for the development of research careers and to improve the
transferable skills (employability skills) of postgraduate students.
As a result, the Research Councils created a specific funding
stream (Roberts' Money) of over £120 million between 2003-11
to address these issues in all research disciplines. The Roberts'
Money was used to fund new training schemes or activities aimed
at improving the employability skills of postgraduate students.
A number of submissions were supportive of the scheme and the
impact it has had on improving the employability skills of postgraduates.
134. In 2010, the Research Councils commissioned
a review of the Roberts scheme. The review found that there have
been major improvements facilitated by the Roberts' Money such
as "improved understanding of the importance of more formalised
training and career development for all researchers; and improvement
in the way career development and transferable skills training
is provided for researchers." But, the review concluded that
"there was little interaction of employers and other stakeholders
in setting up skills development programmes which could potentially
diminish the effectiveness of the programmes". Our recommendation
for improved engagement between HEIs and employers, therefore,
applies equally to the postgraduate level. As a result, we were
pleased to hear that the Researcher Development Framework (RDF),
developed by Vitae in consultation with employers, has gone some
way to improve the employability skills of postgraduates and guide
the knowledge, behaviour and attributes of a successful researcher.
135. Given its findings, the Research Council
review recommended that "funding should ... continue to be
made available specifically for the development of transferrable
skills of researchers and their careers".
However, in 2011, the Roberts' Money funding stream was closed.
Research Councils UK (RCUK) told us that this was because funding
was now being embedded in the standard funding mechanisms. However,
we share the concerns of the University of Manchester and the
University of Oxford that embedding this type of funding may dilute
the message that transferrable skills in postgraduates should
form a fundamental part of their training.
136. We recommend that the Research Councils
monitor the impact of embedding Roberts' Money into the standard
Quality of teaching
137. Several witnesses expressed concern about
a lack of incentives for HEIs to improve the quality of teaching
within their institutions. The QAA measures a number of process
factors that are proxy measures for the quality of teaching. But,
as with the standards, they are testing to a threshold level.
They are not assessing whether teachers are of a high quality.
138. The HEA, which has 165 HEI subscribers,
has an important role to play in promoting good practice
in teaching in HEIs. The HEA is owned by Universities UK and GuildHE
"which supports the higher education sector in providing
the best possible learning experience for all students".
It promotes professional development and accreditation of teaching
through its re-launched UK Professional Standards Framework (see
The priorities of the Higher Education
Supporting leaders and managers to develop an
organisational culture and infrastructure within which student
and staff learning can thrive, and in which change is managed
confidently and creatively;
- Helping to improve the quality of learning and
teaching practice by providing a structured framework and resources
to underpin professional development and by supporting a vibrant
and professional learning culture across the sector;
- Responding quickly and intelligently to the most
urgent and significant strategic issues and contemporary challenges
that the sector is facing, supporting the sector to react wisely
and decisively during times of unprecedented change and acting
as a national voice to positively influence change;
- Underpinning all of the above with high quality
and rigorous research and evidence and applying this insight to
enhance policy and practice.
139. The recent HEA report, Dimensions of
Quality, concluded that teachers who have teaching qualifications
are rated more highly by their students than teachers that do
not. Professor Craig Mahoney, Chief Executive of the HEA,
told us: "out of the 180,000 academics working in UK higher
education, there are currently 30,000 academics registered on
our books as being qualified to teach, having completed a postgraduate
certificate in higher education, or having completed a recognised
programme through our organisations, which aligns at the same
standard against a professional standards framework".
He argued that the actual number of qualified teachers was
probably higher than this because HEIs were not required to report
to the HEA if they had provided training through other means.
140. This evidence suggests, however, that there
is a significant shortage of academics "trained" to
teach to a high standard. ABPI said that one reason for this shortfall
was that the Research Excellence Framework (REF) did not offer
sufficient incentive for HEIs to provide top quality teaching.
According to Professor Mahoney, longitudinal studies have
indicated that "promotions criteria, more commonly
recognise research characteristics and research achievements than
141. The HEA suggested that, if teaching is to
be valued in the same way as research, the career structures within
universities needed to change so that more promotion opportunities
were made available to good teachers.
The AMS made a similar point.
The AMS also suggested that guidelines on best practice for improving
teaching were integral to improving the value and recognition
of teaching. They argued that Government and professional bodies
should be proactive in orchestrating the spread of good practice
in the management of the teaching load. The Society of Biology
suggested putting in place measures to highlight the importance
of teaching at HEIs such as HE teaching awards, CPD in teaching
and clear routes to promotion that recognised the importance of
142. There is considerable debate about the relationship
between teaching and research.
We recognise that research is an important factor in determining
the quality of provision within STEM when students wish to go
on to conduct their own research, but we agree with HEA that it
should not be the only factor. HEA said that "we are seeing
a rebalancing" of promotions criteria away from research
and towards recognition of good teaching. However, we received
little evidence of this rebalancing. From 2014, it is proposed
that data on the professional accreditation of teaching staff,
which is collected by HESA, could be used to trigger an out-of-cycle
review by the QAA if the numbers were considered to be lower than
the average. Whilst
welcoming this development, it is not, in our view, enough.
143. The Higher Education White Paper, under
the HE reforms, stated that "well-informed students will
drive teaching excellence". Our panel of students valued
an emphasis on teaching but thought teaching was not a high priority
within all HEIs. Fabio Fiorelli, a fourth-year MEng chemical engineering
student at University College London, for example, told us: "I
believe that what could be improved is the interaction with the
students. It would be nice to be able to reward those teachers
who make the best of their time with the students".
144. In 2010, the Browne Review recommended that
all HE staff should receive teacher training.
We agree that this should be the aspiration of all HEIs, and that
students, if they are to drive quality in the system, should be
able to find out how many of their teachers have had accredited
teacher training. The Government response to the 2012 Review of
Business-University Collaboration (the Wilson Review) stated that
they were exploring whether they could usefully provide additional
information for students including "encouraging HEIs to publish
anonymised information about the qualifications and expertise
of their teaching staff and to publish summary reports of their
student evaluation surveys of teaching on their websites".
They said that HEFCE was developing options for such provision.
145. We considered whether the Government or
HEFCE should play a greater role in improving the quality of teaching
in HEIs. We concluded that they should not on the grounds that
HEIs were primarily responsible for the quality of teaching. However,
we look to HEFCE to take steps to ensure that the REF does not
act as a disincentive to HEIs to promote quality in teaching.
146. We recommend that the number of lecturers
that have received teacher training during the course of their
careers should be set out in the Key Information Set (KIS) (see
paragraphs 151 to 159), along with information about the
training received, and we urge HEIs to offer an accredited course
on teaching which all academic staff would be required to complete.
147. Student assessment of staff performance
and teaching quality should be applied across all HEIs. We recommend
that HEIs should have a robust system in place for assessing the
quality of teaching including an anonymised and standardised assessment
by students. The anonymised results of such assessments should
be published in the KIS at a departmental level. QAA should be
charged with reviewing whether HEIs have appropriate systems in
place to achieve this and that the assessment of teaching quality
is fit for purpose.
The role of students in driving
up quality of provision
148. The HE reforms seek to give students the
power "to prompt quality investigations where there are grounds
for concern". The proposed changes to quality assurance would
continue to allow students the ability to trigger out-of-cycle
investigations under the QAA "concerns" scheme so as
to provide an early warning sign that quality and standards might
be at risk. The changes seek to raise awareness of this scheme.
Students are also able to raise concerns through the Office of
the Independent Adjudicator (OIA).
149. HEFCE's consultation also proposes the establishment
of an annual process for scrutinising key data and information
which could prompt an investigation. Such data could include feedback
from students through the National Student Survey (NSS) data.
In addition, the proposals seek to ensure that there is continued
student engagement in quality assurance and enhancement processes
more generally. The recently introduced Institutional Review was
designed to "embed the principle of full student engagement
in quality assurance", outlining ways in which students could
engage in the process.
150. We asked our panel of students about how
they judged quality within their institutions and if they were
aware of how they could influence quality of provision. Their
views on quality varied. Preferred measures for quality included
access to facilities,
and how well their studies prepared them for work
. Anecdotal evidence from the student panel suggested that
many do not know how quality is measured in their HEIs. Will Evans,
for example, a third-year biochemistry student from Imperial College
London, told us: "I did not know what the QAA was until I
was invited to this meeting".
THE KEY INFORMATION SET (KIS)
151. Part of the move to a stronger focus on
involving students and aiding student choice to drive up quality
is through the provision of more information about courses. This
has been done through the development of the KIS, which HEIs must
provide for prospective students.
152. The KIS will outline information that students
have identified as useful to them in choosing a course. These
- student satisfaction
- course information
- employment and salary data
- accommodation costs
- financial information, such as fees
- students' union information.
153. We note that the QAA's proposals for the
use of data to trigger out-of-cycle reviews do not include referring
to wider data held in the KIS, other than the NSS. This is because,
they say, they "do not consider ... [the KIS] to offer comparable,
well-understood, established, valid or reliable proxies for the
quality of teaching and learning".
The HEA also concluded in their Dimensions of Quality report
that it seemed unlikely that comparative indicators of quality
currently available could provide prospective students with a
valid basis to distinguish between individual courses with regards
154. Concerns have also been expressed that focusing
on the NSS and, therefore, on student evaluation of their "experience"
might be at the expense of taking into account learning outcomes,
and that students may not always be the best judge of their own
educational or employment interests.
Furthermore, the student experience is "difficult to quantify".
As Will Evans told us: "I have not been to any other universities
so I have nothing to compare it with".
155. The Imperial College Student Union told
"the KIS is a welcome innovation which, if it
contains the right information, will drive up quality and improve
the decision-making process of prospective students. However,
most current students are not aware of the proposals. It will
be a major challenge to encourage prospective students to use
the objective information offered in the KIS over the subjective
information they are bombarded with from friends, family, peers
156. They proposed that "more fields be
introduced to the KIS to allow prospective students to compare
teaching quality, such as: a percentage breakdown of teaching
mode (one-to-one, tutorials, lectures, self-directed study, fieldwork)",
amongst other measures. 
157. The KIS will require HEIs to focus effort
in key areas and inform student choice. However, according to
the National HE STEM programme:
"initial 'mock-ups' show only an initial analysis
of perceived quality and short-term measures; the longer-term
benefits to the learner of higher education study are not included.
For example, only six-month post-graduation employment data is
currently shown, but the full benefits of STEM study may not be
evident until several years after graduation. The provision of
such longer-term careers information for graduates would allow
prospective students to assess and compare the value of studying
158. Amran Hussain, a biomedical sciences graduate,
told us that other outcome factors should also be included in
the KIS, such as which skills would be gained from which courses,
potential career paths, as well as more information on the destination
The Higher Education White Paper recognised that, because of the
lack of data currently available, this is an area of weakness.
We are not convinced that HEIs are yet in a position to provide
students with the information they need. We agree also that the
KIS should be extended to the postgraduate level.
159. The KIS is a good starting point to help
to ensure that students have the information they need to make
an informed decision about their courses. However, the value of
some of the information offered is not clear or sufficient to
enable a student to make an informed choice about the quality
of provision delivered by their course. The Government should
ensure that the information provided in the KIS gives students
the information they need to make an informed choice about the
quality of their course. We recommend that the KIS should contain
more detailed information on destination data beyond six months,
as well as career paths; other measures of quality (including
teaching); and more information on outcomes (that is, the skills
that students will acquire during their studies). A similar KIS
should also be available to postgraduate students with equivalent
information on postgraduate provision.
Increasing employer involvement
to ensure that graduates leave HEIs with the right employability
160. We have already said (in paragraph 128)
that employers need to be more involved in setting of standards
to ensure that graduates leave HEIs with the right employability
skills. This is just one aspect, however, of the wider need for
engagement. The recent Employability Skills Review, published
by the National HE STEM Programme, recommended that the following
steps should be taken:
"Encourage HEIs to explore ways of engaging
with employers to develop employability support plans that will
help ensure their graduates have the relevant practical skills
that are required for the workplace; deliver an enhanced capacity
for employer engagement supported by training and a commitment
by employers to financially support programmes which provide clear
benefit; encourage HEIs to utilise 'in-house' careers advice and
guidance support resources; and increase HEI awareness of the
developing methods of providing both direct and indirect experience
of employers, and support their wider adoption across STEM."
161. We received evidence of several examples
of successful employer engagement with HEIs, such as industry
representatives sitting on advisory boards within HEIs, and the
Wilson Review also identified a number of examples of good practice.
However, two areas in particular were drawn to our attention as
being especially important for effective engagement. The first
concerns the involvement of employers in accreditation by professional
bodies; and, the second concerns the number and quality of work
placements and sandwich courses. We discuss each of these below.
162. The Government said in their Plan for
Growth, published in March 2011, that accreditation schemes
will give employers the confidence that graduates have the necessary
skills. A key
benefit of accreditation is that it is informed by the needs of
employers but is independent of any individual employer.
Accreditation for a professional qualification (such as
a Chartered Chemist, Physicist, Chartered Scientist or Registered
Scientist) indicates the acceptability of a degree as part of
the qualification route to professional status, which has built-in
163. Accreditation is seen to be a useful medium
through which to engage industry in setting employability outcomes.
For example, the Society of Biology said:
"when fully rolled-out across all the biosciences,
accreditation will recognise outstanding biosciences courses across
the UK that focus not only on core knowledge but also on experimental
and analytical skills. It is our hope that Degree Accreditation
will provide employers with assurance over the levels of laboratory
and fieldwork experience provided by a degree, and the coverage
of key areas of expertise required for further employment in specialist
scientific careers. Accreditation will also make it easier for
students to choose degrees which will equip them for future scientific
164. Mark Down, Chief Executive of the Society
of Biology, told us: "professional bodies are well placed
to facilitate ... dialogue [between universities and employers]
because we have people who sit in both camps".
Dr Rob Best of the Institution of Chemical Engineers and
the Engineering Council supported this view: "the Register
Standards Committee of the Engineering Council is made up of about
50% of people from industry and 50% academics".
165. The Engineering Council commented: "there
is a very good match between the Engineering Council's published
general learning outcomes for accredited engineering degrees and
the employability skills cited by the CBI".
166. The British Computer Society (BCS) told
us that "computer science students do not always have the
range of transferable skills required by industry, which includes
entrepreneurial skills". The BCS, therefore, encouraged the
"inclusion of transferable skills training in Computer Science
degrees via its accreditation process".
There are clearly concerns in this area for forensic science students
too. LGC, for example, commented:
"due to their broad and necessarily superficial
coverage of multiple disciplines the majority of
do not equip students with the right fundamental technical skill-set
for employment in our laboratories; it is therefore an issue of
quality rather than number of graduates
The broadened interdisciplinary
nature of many UK degrees means that the new recruits with these
degrees rarely have sufficient practical laboratory skills or
in-depth knowledge of fundamental science concepts to deliver
the required quality of service, and need additional training
It would appear that this position has arisen
due to academic institutions interpreting what is required by
industry without sufficient proactive industry involvement in
stating requirements for recruits and the opportunities available
We therefore welcome the fact that the Forensic Science
Society has a programme of accreditation of forensic science courses,
currently accrediting courses in 23 HEIs
out of 51 HEIs that offer courses in that subject.
167. Employers also supported accreditation as
a mechanism through which industry could influence the outcomes
of courses to ensure that graduates had the required skills for
In addition, many commented on the importance of accreditation
in driving up quality of provision more generally, above that
provided by the QAA.
The Wellcome Trust, for example, said that "the introduction
of accreditation should help improve the quality of STEM graduates,
promote best practice in STEM teaching and harmonise course content
Dr Sudworth from Cogent also noted that the professional
bodies had "a role in ensuring greater quality than in the
QAA benchmark statements".
However, accreditation is not currently available for all courses
or subject areas.
168. Efforts have also been made to improve engagement
with employers at the postgraduate level through such accreditation
schemes and through Vitae. The Research Councils fund Vitae to
support the professional and career development of postgraduate
researchers and research staff in HEIs. Vitae produce the RDF
which describes the knowledge, behaviours and attributes of successful
RDF was developed after consultation with HEIs and employers.
It is endorsed by over 30 stakeholders including the Research
Councils, UK funding bodies and Universities UK. Several witnesses
praised the RDF and use it when mapping or reviewing training
and courses in order to provide the skills in the RDF.
169. Given the limitations on the role that
the QAA plays in sign posting high quality provision, we believe
that accreditation of courses by professional bodies would be
a sensible way forward. Accreditation may not be possible for
courses in areas where there are no professional bodies. However,
for those that have professional bodies and do not already have
an accreditation scheme, we would urge them to consider setting
up such a scheme.
170. In their 2011 Autumn Statement, the Government
expressed their support for "the kite-marking of courses
that employers value by science, technology, engineering and maths
Sector Skills Councils supported by the Confederation of British
171. The Science Council, however, argued that
kite-marking of degrees for particular employers or sectors "could
become bureaucratic, costly and fragmented and thereby fail to
respond to the needs of either students and a very broad range
of science employers". They suggested that kite-marking might
be appropriate for vocational degrees but in reality very few
STEM degrees fitted such criteria.
The Engineering Council also expressed considerable concern over
"The creation of a kite-marking scheme alongside
the well-established arrangements for accreditation by professional
bodies could well cause confusion, not least to potential students
and their advisers. If the proposal is to be implemented then
it is important that there is clarity about what it is intended
to do and how it differs from professional body accreditation."
172. When we asked the Rt Hon David
Willetts MP for his views on the potential overlap in the
aims of accreditation and kite-marking, he said: "we are
moving to a much more open environment. ... I can imagine a university
that was very keen to be able to say, 'Rolls-Royce approves of
our engineering course' ... A lot more of that will be going on,
and a good thing, too".
Rolls Royce, however, disagreed: "we are really not convinced
that [kite-marking] will significantly enhance the quality or
visibility of good courses, and would be concerned if this became
either a bureaucratic exercise, or a distraction to universities".
173. In our view, it would be overly burdensome
for employers to kite-mark individually hundreds of courses in
the UK. A better approach would be to involve industry through
the accrediting bodies and for companies to state whether they
supported the accreditation. Given the tension between accreditation
and kite-marking, we invite the Government to explain the aim
of kite-marking and what it is expected to achieve beyond that
which accreditation by professional bodies already provides.
174. We recommend that professional bodies,
such as the Institute of Physics or the Institute of Mechanical
Engineers, should make further efforts to provide accreditation
of different STEM subject areas to ensure that students have confidence
in the quality of their chosen course and that they will achieve
high quality outcomes in terms of skills and knowledge. For those
courses where there is less of a clear link with a profession,
we recommend that the Science Council consider whether it would
be possible to develop a broader system of accreditation to ensure
that graduates have the core skill set required of a STEM graduate.
We further recommend that the Government should provide support
for such activities in the early stages of development until they
are fully established.
PLACEMENTS AND INTERNSHIPS FOR UNDERGRADUATES
175. Many of the submissions we received commented
on work placements as a key factor in ensuring that graduates
acquired suitable employability skills.
The Wilson Review also noted that placements, internships and
other forms of work experience were extremely valuable to students
in terms of academic performance and employability skills, and
that they improved employability opportunities. A report commissioned
by HEFCE and published in 2011 found that "there appears
to be evidence, clearest for sandwich placements, that a benefit
of structured work experience is improved employment outcomes
after graduation", and argued that "the priority for
activity/interventions by the HE sector should therefore be to
support work experience placements for students during their period
of HE study so that they develop the employability skills employers
require and begin to build a body of work experience in advance
of entering the employment market proper".
Both the Dearing Report in 1997 and the Roberts Review in 2002
also recommended that more undergraduate courses should offer
176. The Russell Group, and many others, agreed:
"a key aspect of developing employability skills for many
students is the opportunity to gain first-hand experience of the
workplace during their studies".
Southampton University told us that work-related experience "can
be highly relevant and beneficial
for the student and a
significant factor to bring them into STEM-related employment.
It is also beneficial for the employer to identify new talent".
177. Our student panel told us that carrying
out a placement helped them to decide which career route to follow,
as well as preparing them for the world of work.
Imperial College Union raised a similar point with regard
to placements for postgraduate students. They told us that the
quality of a placement can have a major impact on a student's
decision about whether to pursue a career in research: "if
the placement is poorly designed or uninteresting ... their perceptions
of a career in research or industry can be changed permanently."
178. The findings from a recent Science Council
report support these views:
"research identified that for graduate internships,
the number of vacancies in STEM industries seems to be much lower
than in many other sectors, including finance and business and
that it is easier for a STEM graduate to find an internship in
a business-oriented environment than in a scientific or technical
one. The research also identified that ... STEM graduates appear
to be less likely than other graduates to pursue internships.
Given the call from employers for graduates with higher levels
of practical and technical skills, it was surprising therefore
that there are very few genuinely scientific or technical internships
for graduates". 
179. A number of submissions suggested that employers
should be encouraged to offer internships.
The Wilson Review said that "to enhance graduate skills levels
and ensure a smooth and effective transition between university
and business environments, there is a need to increase opportunities
for students to acquire relevant work experience during their
studies", and that "ideally, every full-time undergraduate
student should have the opportunity to experience a structured,
university-approved undergraduate internship" and made a
number of recommendations about how this might be achieved.
Placements should also be available for postgraduates.
The Wilson Review further suggested that the Government should
support companies that host students on full sandwich placement
years, or provide internships, through a tax credit or grant mechanism.
For unpaid internships it recommended that HEIs use their Office
for Fair Access (OFFA) funds to support students.
180. When we spoke to the Rt Hon David
Willetts MP about the Wilson Review recommendations, he said
that "there is striking evidence that industrial placements
... are concentrated in a very small number of universities ...
[therefore] if they can do it other universities ought to be able
to do it as well".
He also said that BIS were in the process of assessing the
feasibility of the recommendations, but that he was not sure whether
they would be sustainable.
181. Alternative mechanisms for exposing students
to the work environment need to be explored. The businesses to
which we spoke emphasised the benefits of building better relationships
and collaborations between HEIs and employers as a way of encouraging
employers to take part. The Royal Society and the Wilson Review
made similar points.
We are aware, however, that this issue is a particular challenging
for SMEs. Semta
noted that "whilst the majority of large companies in the
sector actively engage with universities, provide placements and
employ undergraduates, graduate and postgraduates, this is not
the case for the majority of SMEs who make up 99% of the sector.
The problem for SMEs is one of perception in terms of barriers:
e.g. relevance of HE engagement to an SME; value and return on
investment by SMEs in recruiting a graduate; resources to support
an undergraduate, work placement, internship, graduate training
and post-graduate support". They were currently looking at
mechanisms to encourage SMEs to engage.
182. Our panel of employers indicated that economic
incentives for employers to offer placements would be welcome
but that more had to be done in terms of aligning the needs of
students with those of the employers. Professor Chris Wise,
founder of Expedition Engineering, suggested that what students
were learning at universities had to dovetail with the work experience
that employers had to offer and this would require a close collaboration
between HEIs and employers.
183. It is widely recognised that good quality,
well-supervised work placements and internships increase the employability
of undergraduates and postgraduates. Their availability is almost
non-existent in the case of postgraduate provision and in recent
years, placements for undergraduates have been in decline, from
9.5% of the total full-time cohort in 2002-03 to 7.2% in 2009-10.
The Wilson Review recommended that all undergraduates and postgraduates
should be offered internships and that more sandwich courses should
be offered. Whilst right in principle, given the current economic
climate, it is unclear how this provision would be funded. In
July 2012, the Government's response to the consultation on the
Higher Education White Paper stated that fees for a sandwich course
should be no more than 15% of the normal fees.
This is a welcome development. However, the Government did not
specify how they intended to encourage or incentivise employers
to offer placements.
184. We recommend that the Government, employers
and HEIs find a way to incentivise employers, particularly SMEs,
to offer more work placements, and encourage more students to
take them up.
185. In order to assist HEIs in engaging with
employers and in securing placements for their undergraduate and
postgraduate students, we further recommend that a central database
should be established to post opportunities for placements for
undergraduates and postgraduates. We recommend that the Government
extend the remit of the Graduate Talent Pool service to include
undergraduates and postgraduate placement opportunities.
The role of the Research Councils
and HEFCE in the quality assurance of postgraduate provision
186. The Research Councils fund around 25% of
all doctoral students from UK universities of which around 76%
are studying STEM subjects.
HEFCE also provide funding to HEIs for postgraduate provision
through the research degree programme supervision fund (equivalent
to £205 million in 2011-12).
They have a responsibility, therefore, in conjunction with HEIs,
to ensure the quality of the provision they fund. They also have
a role in ensuring both that high quality STEM applicants enter
STEM doctoral training and that doctoral graduates have the necessary
skills that employers demand. (PhD teaching funding is also allocated
from several other sources, which have different methods to assess
the quality of provision. These are not discussed in this report.)
187. The Research Councils use their own methods
to assess an institution's ability to supply high quality of doctoral
provision and the quality of the candidates they fund. For example,
some Research Councils only consider applications from first degree
graduates who have achieved a 2:1 or a first class degree.
188. Different types of doctoral training have
distinct proxies of quality measures, for example Doctoral Training
Centres (DTCs) have to meet certain criteria in order to receive
funding from the Research Councils. They are reported to have
improved the quality of doctoral training because of the criteria
for setting up a DTC. These include a strong research environment,
critical mass of PhD positions, delivery of set learning outcomes,
and conditions for learning.
There are also other forms of high quality doctoral provision
ABPI told us, for example, that DTCs are valued by employers and
by the students who undertake PhDs through them because they provide
a critical mass of students who learn from each other and benefit
from access to different disciplines in a general area of science
The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
mid-term review of their DTCs concluded that the DTC approach
was an effective way of training a cohort of students, and leveraging
substantial industrial funding. RCUK noted that the Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) centres have provided clear evidence
that they can deliver the highest quality training provision.
189. On the other hand, from 2012-13, HEFCE will
use the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) rating of HEIs, a process
carried out every five years in order to assess the quality of
research undertaken by HEIs to allocate a block grant to fund
postgraduate provision according to an institution's research
quality star rating.
The use of the RAE rating to allocate funding for doctoral teaching
provision, as opposed to the number of students and the cost of
course provision, was supported by RCUK, because it links quality
of research to doctoral provision more explicitly.
However, it is considered by many to be controversial because
it does not ensure that the teaching provision is of a high quality.
Oxford Brookes University, for example, told us that "we
are unaware of any evidence that demonstrates a correlation between
quality outputs and the quality of postgraduate training",
indicating that the existence of internationally recognised research
at an HEI does not necessarily mean a high quality postgraduate
learning environment. 
Other universities and the QAA agree that research output should
not be the only quality measure and that other factors, such as
completion rates and quality of teaching, should also be taken
190. Based on the evidence we have received,
we find it difficult to judge the processes used for the assessment
of quality in postgraduate provision. Our impression is, however,
that the quality of postgraduate provision is measured in an inconsistent
way across funding bodies and warrants further scrutiny.
191. We recommend that the expert group proposed
to be established to look at postgraduate provision should examine
how the quality of postgraduate teaching provision is assessed
to ensure quality and consistency of approach across funding bodies,
and consider how measures of quality of postgraduate education
that go beyond research excellence might be developed. In particular,
we would urge the Research Councils and other postgraduate funding
bodies to expand the quality principles that underpin the DTC
model to other types of postgraduate funding provision.
DOCTORAL PROVISION MODELS
192. Research Councils split their provision
into the following broad categories:
- Collaborative doctoral studentships
allocated through a variety of routes, such as for example Collaborative
Awards in Science and Engineering (CASE) whereby an industrial
sponsor collaborates through the co-supervision and sponsorship
of a postgraduate researcher.
- Doctoral training grants which are allocated
according to evidence about the excellence of the research environment
or in response to peer-reviewed proposals including a business
- Research council proposals for a small number
of projects in particular subject areas (otherwise known as project
- Doctoral Training Grants or industrial doctorate
193. Recently, some Research Councils have chosen
to increase their provision through DTCs and industrial doctorate
centres. DTCs enable concentration of effort within centres of
research excellence with the flexibility to allow HEIs to offer
four year postgraduate training to cohorts of studentsthereby
creating critical mass and the ability for students, as Professor Sir Adrian
Smith noted, to "develop the advanced skills and knowledge
they need to be successful in their career" over a longer
194. There is considerable support for the concentration
of postgraduate research provision within centres of excellence
through the development of DTCs. Arguably postgraduate provision
through DTCs has improved the standards of PhD training for students.
However, there is concern that PhD funding by the Research Councils
is being squeezed as a result of the move to the provision of
PhD positions through DTCs, with fewer grants available for PhD
The provision for each individual student through DTCs is more
expensive than other forms of provision due, in part, to the flexibility
and option to offer four year courses. For example, it has reportedly
reduced the overall number of STEM PhD students funded by EPSRC.
In addition, EPSRC plans to discontinue the provision of project
studentships on research grants and fellowships as a result of
efforts to concentrate research funding in centres of excellence
with a critical mass of research. Many believe that the removal
of project studentships is a backwards step.
195. This shift towards DTCs and away from project
studentships has raised a number of concerns because it will be
difficult to allocate students to small-scale projects which often
lead to research breakthroughs. This will impact disproportionally
on UK and EU students which make up the majority of project studentship
are also concerns that DTCs are too narrowly focused and skewed
in terms of areas of science and geographical location which could
have a negative impact on specific areas of research. For example,
there is only one DTC for synthetic organic chemistry
and there are no DTCs for physics in the South East of England.
We note, however, that the other HEIs are able to collaborate
with the DTCs.
196. There is concern, therefore, that DTCs will
have a negative impact on the breadth of research that takes place
outside of the centres, given that PhD students are often involved
in new areas of research through project studentships on grants.
197. It has been suggested that DTCs should be
just one element of PhD provision, because there are high quality
PhDs in universities that do not have DTCs (those, for example,
funded through CASE Studentships).
Other proposals have been put forward. They include increasing
the use of regional alliances to offer joint training to postgraduates;
the use of cohort-based training and four year funding but applied
to wider subject areas;
and, the maintenance of an element of project-based funding for
PhDs to provide additional opportunities in emerging research
198. RCUK assured us, however, that "research
council funding for postgraduate research is not restricted to
DTCs", and that "a range of modes of delivery of postgraduate
research training are likely to continue to be needed to address
research capacity, the requirements of specific disciplines, or
the needs of users and beneficiaries of research".
Over the last ten years, the Research Councils have increased
their overall spend on doctoral provision, and the number of students
that they fund from 4,243 in 2000-01 to 5,430 in 2010-11, although
there has been a decrease from a peak of 6,065 in 2007-08.
The DTC model for delivering postgraduate provision is a welcome
development and we understand the rationale to focus on centres
of excellence. But the DTC model should not be the only model
if we are to retain a breadth of research excellencenot
only within our centres of excellence focused on strategic research
objectivesbut also excellence in smaller research projects
which often lead to important scientific breakthroughs. We question,
therefore, why the EPSRC has removed the small, but vital, 2.4
% of its doctoral
funding from project studentships, given the important role they
play in maintaining the breadth of excellence in the UK. It is
not possible to tell from the data available whether other sources
of funding give HEIs the flexibility to fund such studentships
by other means.
199. We recommend that the Government encourage
the Research Councils to preserve a variety of PhD delivery models
to ensure that the UK's current breadth of expertise in science
is maintained and that new areas of science are able to grow.
We also recommend that the proposed expert group set up to consider
the supply and demand for STEM postgraduate provision considers
whether the current provision for funding doctoral study across
funding bodies is sufficient to cover the breadth of excellent
research across the UK.
143 BIS Committee, 12th Report (2010-12): Government
reform of Higher Education (HC 885). Back
University of Manchester, University of Oxford, Council for the
Mathematical Sciences, the Wellcome Trust. Back
Op. cit., the Roberts Review. Back
Op. cit., STEM graduates in non-STEM jobs; Op. cit.,
The demand for STEM skills; CBI, CRAC, National Higher Education
STEM programme, Syngenta, ABPI. Back
The Government. Back
Royal Academy of Engineering, the Science Council. Back
HEA, Graham Gibbs, Dimensions of Quality, September 2010. Back
HEA, Employability in higher education: what it is-what it
is not, April 2006. Back
Imperial College London. Back
1994 Group, ABPI, LGC. Back
Institute of Engineering and Technology. Back
The Government. Back
BIS, Government response: Consultations on: 1-students at the
heart of the system, 2-A new fit for purpose regulatory framework
for the higher education sector, June 2012. Back
After consultation, in 2010 a set of principles for the quality
assurance system were agreed and the development of the new institutional
review in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, were introduced
at the start of 2011-12. They were designed to be more public-facing,
clarify the judgements on quality, increase flexibility and introduced
themed reports to address specific areas of concern to help enhance
The Academic Infrastructure is a set of nationally agreed reference
points which give all institutions a shared starting point for
setting, describing and assuring the quality and standards of
their HE courses. More information is available on the QAA website
at www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/. Back
QAA, The framework for higher education qualifications in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland, August 2008. Back
QAA, Doctoral degree characteristics, September 2011. Back
IUSS Committee, 11th Report (2008-09): Students and Universities
(HC 170-I). Back
Q 171. Back
Q 180. Back
Op. cit., Dimensions of Quality. Back
Q 169. Back
Q 328. Back
The Government. Back
Q 199. Back
Q 237. Back
Q 188. Back
The 1994 Group, the British Computer Society, Engineering Professors'
Council, Heads of Departments of Mathematical Sciences, Institute
of Physics, University of Manchester, University of Oxford, Vitae. Back
Q 461, Q 197, Q 201, ABPI, Aston University, Cardiff
University, University of Greenwich, University of Oxford, University
of Salford, University of Surrey, University of Warwick, Imperial
College London, Open University, Oxford Brookes University, Vitae. Back
RCUK, Review of progress in implementing the recommendations
of Sir Gareth Roberts, regarding employability and career development
of PhD students and research staff, October 2010. Back
University of Manchester, University of Oxford. Back
Q 193. Back
Q 195. Back
Q 199. Back
AMS, Redressing the balance: the status and valuation of teaching
in academic careers in the biomedical sciences, March 2010. Back
Society of Biology, Q 222. Back
ABPI, AMS, the British Computer Society, BMA, Council for the
Mathematical Sciences, Heads of Departments of Mathematical Sciences,
Engineering Professors' Council, Institute of Physics, the Medical
Schools Council, the Physiological Society, Royal Academy of Engineering,
Royal Society of Chemistry, Russell Group, Society of Biology,
SEPNet, University of Oxford, UK Deans of Sciences, QAA, the Government;
Op. cit., Dimensions of Quality. Back
HEFCE, A risk-based approach to quality assurance-consultation,
May 2012. Back
Q 326. Back
Lord Browne of Madingley, Securing a sustainable future for
higher education: an independent review of higher education funding
and student finance, October 2010. Back
BIS, Following up the Wilson Review of business-university
collaboration: next steps for universities, business and government,
June 2012. Back
Op. cit., A risk-based approach to quality assurance-consultation. Back
Q 325. Back
QQ 324-325. Back
Q 327. Back
Op. cit., A risk-based approach to quality assurance-consultation. Back
Op. cit., Dimensions of Quality. Back
Professor MacInnes, University of Oxford, Medical Schools Council,
Russell Group, Heads of Departments of Mathematical Sciences. Back
Q 324. Back
Imperial College Union Back
Imperial College Union. Back
National Higher Education STEM Programme. Back
Q 334, Q 360. Back
National Higher Education STEM Programme, Higher Education
STEM employability skills review, April 2011. Back
Op. cit., Plan for Growth. Back
Society of Biology. Back
Q 230. Back
The Engineering Council. Back
ABPI, the Wellcome Trust, GSK. Back
Institute of Physics. Back
The Wellcome Trust. Back
Q 237. Back
ABPI, Aston University, Professor Bogle, Open University, Oxford
Brookes University, University of Bristol, University of Greenwich,
University of Warrick, Cardiff University. Back
HM Treasury, 2011 Autumn Statement, November 2011. Back
The Science Council. Back
Engineering Council. Back
Q 401. Back
Rolls Royce. Back
ABPI, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Royal Society of
Chemistry, Semta, Royal Academy of Engineering, Russell Group,
Society of Biology, SEPNet, Syngenta, University Alliance, University
of Cambridge, Vitae, Vectura. Back
Oakleigh Consulting Ltd and CRAC for HEFCE, Increasing opportunities
for high quality higher education work experience, July 2011. Back
The Russell Group. Back
University of Southamton. Back
Q 339, QQ 362-365. Back
Imperial College Union. Back
The Science Council, Work experience for STEM students and
graduates, April 2011. Back
ABPI, SEPNet, Society of Biology, University of Cambridge, Syngenta,
University of Manchester. Back
Op. cit., A review of business-university collaboration. Back
Q 406. Back
Op. cit., A review of business-university collaboration;
Royal Society, QQ 159-161. Back
Engineering Professors' Council, Semta, Vitae, Q 52. Back
Q 159. Back
Op. cit., A review of business-university collaboration. Back
Op. cit., Response to the consultation on the Higher
Education White Paper. Back
ESRC, Postgraduate training and development guidelines,
Russell Group, Imperial College London, RCUK, 1994 Group, University
of Oxford, Engineering Professors' Council, Medical Schools Council,
ABPI, Institute of Physics, University Alliance, The Wellcome
The RAE will be succeeded by the REF with similar principles as
the RAE for the allocation of funding. Back
Oxford Brookes University. Back
University of Greenwich, University of Kent, University of Salford. Back
Op. cit., One step beyond: Making the most of postgraduate
Russell Group, Imperial College London, RCUK, 1994 Group, University
of Oxford, Engineering Professors Council, Medical Schools Council,
ABPI, Institute of Physics, University Alliance; Op. cit.,
One step beyond: making the most of postgraduate education. Back
Royal Society of Chemistry, Royal Academy of Engineering, Institute
of Physics, Heads of Departments of Mathematical Sciences, Institute
of Engineering and Technology, Professor Michael Singer, UK Deans
of Science. Back
Council for Mathematical Sciences, Royal Academy of Engineering,
University of Oxford, Science Council. Back
Institution of Engineering and Technology, University of Manchester,
Imperial College London. Back
Institute of Physics, Professor Michael Singer, Institution of
Engineering and Technology. Back
Royal Society of Chemistry. Back
UK Deans of Science, Institute of Physics, Council for the Mathematics
Sciences, the Physiological Society, Engineering Professors' Council. Back
Engineering Professors' Council. Back
Institute of Physics, SEPnet. Back
University of Oxford. Back
Imperial College London. Back