All information presented in this bulletin has been validated and quality assured by HEIs prior to publication. HEIs are given a set period of time to submit the information to HESA. Following submission, both HESA and DfE perform a series of validation checks to ensure that information is consistent both within and across returns. Trend analyses are used to monitor annual variations and emerging trends. Queries arising from validation checks are presented to HEIs for clarification and, if required, returns may be amended and/or re-submitted. Finally, prior to publication, the data are presented to HEIs for a final sign-off. More detail is available via the link Quality of HigherEducation Statistics. Who will be interested in this bulletin?
The HE institution at which each student is registered is responsible for submitting the data to HESA about that student. The institutions data must go through over 700 validation checks in order for a return to be accepted. These checks ensure that the data are accurate in terms of format and logic. There are specific validations checks for NI HEIs which cover variables collected from NI HEIs only, for example, religion, dependents and marital status. Year-on- year changes are examined closely to see if they fall outside of an expected range and counts of students are also compared annually with returns made to funding bodies in respect of state funding allocation. Any issues arising from any of the above stages of quality assurance are returned to the institution to verify.
In 2017/18, students from over 110 different countries throughout the world were enrolled at NI HEIs. The countries from outside NI, GB and the RoI with the most students enrolled at NI campuses (not including those registered to Ulster University but based in Birmingham or London) were China (1,230), Malaysia (355), United States (235), India (165) and Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region of China) (110) (Table 8d). The 170 enrolments, from students domiciled outside the UK and RoI, registered to Ulster University were all based in the London campus. These were made up of students from around 35 different countries, including China (25 students), India (20), Bangladesh (15) and Nepal (15) (Table 8e).
HESA data for NI only covers students who study HE through a HigherEducation Institution (HEI), however students can also study HE courses through Further Education (FE) colleges. Therefore caution must be exercised when comparing HE statistics from different publications, especially across different countries. To allow our customers to look at the totality of HE provision a factsheet is published on the DfE website annually with the number of NI students enrolled on HE courses in the UK in both HEIs and FE colleges, split by mode and level of study in a five year time series.
The coverage of the survey has been expanded to include additional HE qualifications and now includes Non-EU domiciled leavers where it was previously restricted to UK and European Union domiciled leavers only. Surveying these leavers was undertaken as a pilot from 2011/12 with a clear distinction that the information collected should not be published until carefully reviewed. These leavers are therefore excluded from this bulletin. Additionally, there were leavers who obtained postgraduate research qualifications from dormant status (for example those returning to submit a thesis or to retake exams during the reporting period). The destination outcomes of these leavers are considered to be materially different in nature to the outcomes of the other postgraduate research leavers included in the survey so these leavers have been excluded.
The bulletin is divided into two sections. Section 1 focuses on the destinations of NI domiciled students who gained a qualification at a HEI in NI, England, Scotland or Wales. Section 2 concentrates on the destinations of all NI, GB and other EU students who gained a qualification at a NI HEI. This division into two sections reflects the two distinct policy and operational responsibilities of the Minister and the Department. Furthermore, it is clear from customer feedback, the nature of questions on HE asked in the NorthernIreland Assembly, and coverage of HE issues in the local media, for example, that these two aspects are of interest to readers. Therefore it has been decided to present
On receipt of destinations data from HESA, DfE statisticians merge this UKDLHE file with the NI specific datasets produced for the enrolments and qualifications bulletins. This is then cross-verified, across a range of variables, with previously published HESA data. Prior to publication, DfE’s bulletins will undergo rigorous checking procedures including peer-review of syntax used to analyse data from the HESA databases, parallel production of data tables using pivot tables and statistical software packages, and extensive proof- reading of commentary, tables, notes to readers and definitions. Finally, publications also require senior staff sign-off before release.
The Head of the Branch is the Principal Statistician, Mrs. Laura Smyth. The Branch aims to present information in a meaningful way and provide advice on its uses to customers in the DEL Committee, Further Education Colleges, Universities, Professional Advisory Groups, policy branches within the DEL, other educational organisations, academia, private sector organisations, charity/voluntary organisations as well as the general public. The statistical information collected is used to contribute to major exercises such as reporting on the performance of the HigherEducation and Further Education sectors, other comparative performance exercises, target setting and monitoring, departmental research projects, development of service frameworks as well as policy formulation and evaluation. In addition, the information is used in response to a significantly high volume of Assembly questions and ad-hoc queries each year.
8. Target population – The HESA DLHE report’s target population includes all UK and European Union (EU) domiciled leavers at a UK HEI and who obtained relevant qualifications (see note 10) reported to HESA for the reporting period 1st August 2014 to 31st July 2015. The coverage of the survey was expanded to include additional HE qualifications and now includes Non-EU domiciled leavers as part of a pilot. Surveying these leavers was undertaken with a clear distinction that the information collected should not be published until carefully reviewed.
representatives of the, students, trade unions and employers appointed its own working group in December 2003 headed by the HRK, which, with the participation of other experts, produced a draft document on a Qualifications Framework for German HigherEducationQualifications, and for doctorates (Promotion). Following consultations with faculty and departmental conferences, with representatives of vocational and professional practice, with accreditation agencies and other experts, the HRK and the KMK adopted the Qualifications Framework in spring 2005 and presented it to the Bologna Follow-up Conference held in Bergen in May.
The information presented in this statistical bulletin will be of interest to a wide variety of people. For example, the statistics are used by DfE policy officials in their role of assisting and advising the Minister for DfE to discharge their duties; by the NI Assembly’s Committee for the Economy to scrutinise the Essential Skills sector; by other government departments, such as the Department of Education; by local businesses to quantify the supply of those qualifying in their business area; by prospective students to inform their choices around Essential Skills courses; and by researchers and academics to try and understand the underlying trends in Essential Skills.
A further notable result is the difference between institutions in the cost of postgraduates: the AIC is around £3000 in colleges of highereducation, £8000 in post-1992 HEIs and £14000 in pre-1992 universities, although the last AIC in particular should be interpreted with caution since its calculation involves extrapolation outside the valid domain. There are various possible explanations for these observed differences between groups of institutions in their estimated AICs. First, they may be a consequence of a technical problem with the model. If, owing perhaps to a paucity of observations, variation in one or more of the variables is limited, the quadratic specification can be particularly prone to problems of multicollinearity because variables appear not only in linear form but also in a multiplicity of interaction terms. Secondly, the inter-institutional difference in AICs may be a consequence of different mixes of outputs in the different groups of HEIs. Thirdly, the inter-institutional variation in the AIC of postgraduates may arise from the fact that the postgraduate output encompasses considerable variety in the type of qualifications obtained: for example, 1 year teacher training; 1 year taught masters; or 3 year doctorate. Clearly, the resources required for each type of qualification will vary and, if (as appears to be the case from the descriptive statistics in Table 2) different types of HEI specialise in different types of postgraduate qualification, this will give rise to the variation across institutions in AIC for postgraduate teaching. This is investigated further in section 4.6. 4.3 Estimates of economies of scale and scope
In addition to estimating the individual and Exchequer rates of return, we have also modelled the impact of the proposed student finance reforms (set out in the 2004 HigherEducation Bill) to assess the impact of this policy on economic returns. This additional modelling work assumes that there is no change to current highereducation participation rates or the distribution of students between subjects (i.e. students are not discouraged from applying to enter university and do not opt for ‘cheaper’ subjects or universities as a result of differential top up fees). The results indicate that the rate of return to the individual actually increases following the introduction of the student finance reforms. For a representative degree holder, the individual rate of return increases from 12.1% to 13.2%, which is equivalent to approximately £2,650 overall in monetary terms over the graduate’s working life.
Respondents were also asked to comment on the three main factors they would take into consideration when making a judgement about offering a place to a school leaver. The top two unprompted responses were candidates’ references or personal statement (39 per cent), and general enthusiasm and attitude to study (31 per cent). The next most common response was general academic attainment (26 per cent), which was mentioned more than A levels (24 per cent) and GCSEs (21 per cent) specifically. These qualifications were most important to Russell Group respondents whilst general attitude and performance at interview were of particular importance to Other HigherEducationInstitutions. Other qualifications mentioned by respondents as one of the top three factors they would consider when reviewing a candidate were Level 3 qualifications (8 per cent and mainly within the New HigherEducation
domiciled students reported to HESA for the reporting period 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011 as obtaining relevant qualifications and whose study was full-time or part-time (including sandwich students and those writing-up theses). Awards from dormant status are not included in the target population. Relevant qualifications for inclusion in the DLHE return are postgraduate degrees, postgraduate diplomas and certificates, Postgraduate Certificates in Education (PGCE), first degrees (excludes intercalated degrees), Diplomas of HigherEducation (DipHE), Certificates of HigherEducation
16 The sector subject area with the most achievements in the QCF during October - December 2012 was retail and commercial enterprise with 8,153 (31 per cent of QCF achievements (see figure 11)). This sector subject area also had the largest number of achievements when we consider all regulated qualifications (not just those in the QCF). The sector subject area with the next highest number of achievements was arts, media and publishing with 5,136 (20 per cent of QCF achievements). If we consider all regulated qualifications (not just those in the QCF) then this sector subject area had the third highest number of achievements. Full details of the
Szulanski (2000) identifies the difficulty of a knowledge transfer process. First, the strength of tie between the staff (staff research) and students influences the effectiveness of the transfer. The tie can be strengthened by creating positive attitudes among students towards staff research. Second, the direct transfer of research findings to students is inappropriate as this can create ambiguity; for example the research findings can be too abstract or too complex or incompatible with the syllabus. In order to overcome this difficulty, research output of projects can be re-constructed to suit the student audience. Third, the absorptive capacity of students differs depending on their prior knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and the strategies need to take this into account. For example, at level one, students can be given an introduction to the basic research process and at a higher-level can access direct research experience. Fourth, the reliability of research results is an important factor in transferring research knowledge into teaching. This leads to suggest that in feeding research results into teaching a filtering process (by comparing student standards and the syllabus) needs to take place. Fifth, Szulanski (2000) also points out motivation as an influencing factor during knowledge transfer. Not only staff motivation but also student motivation is required in creating this R&T link. This can be created by a cultural change within the department. Finally, since the transfer does not occur in a vacuum, the other contextual factors that originate within the organisation such as resources, strategies and practices can also have an influence.
This paper critically analyses the role of Personal Tutoring (PT) as a mechanism for providing student support in HigherEducation (HE) in the UK. The discussions presented will draw on the experiences of PT at City University, London (City), as well as the author’s own experiences as a student, to establish a better sense of what PT means today. Focus will be placed on the benefits and challenges of typical PT systems in HE, as influenced by widening participation policies and strategies to improve retention rates. In carrying out this analysis, this paper will conclude by arguing the case for PT to remain a necessary process, rather than be replaced entirely by central support departments.
Although, the CRS and VRS models show that Russell group HEIs are more energy efficient than the non-Russell group HEIs. In practice, this may not be holistically due to the difference in their sample size. According to Nguyen et al. (2016) , DEA could result in biased efficiency scores when comparing samples of varying sizes. Malmquist index analysis is therefore another important tool used in this study to further probe the efficiency change across the HEIs and years. Additionally, it will offer in-depth evidence about the productivity of these HEIs and alleviate the DEA sensitivity to sample size. 3.2 Malmquist Productivity Index
The Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) inspects a range of providers, including pre-schools; primary and post-primary schools; the youth service; institutes of further and highereducation; and educational provision within the prison service. It is part of the Department of Education. 5