Monthly Archives: September 2015

The Midnight Bike Ride

Posted on by

Once again a small number of hardy souls from the University will be taking part in the annual British Heart Foundation Midnight Bike Ride from Manchester to Blackpool, over the night of 26th-27th September.

If you’d like to join us, there is still time to book into the event via the BHF website – it’s not a race, so endurance is more important than speed, just let me know if you’re coming along and we can meet up at the beginning. And maybe the end.

Even better, it would be great if you could sponsor one of us – here is the link to my JustGiving page

Bike Ride_1018789795

(from visitblackpool.com).

I promise not to flood this blog next week with pictures of me or other senior colleagues dressed in lycra……

Differences in Degree Outcomes

Posted on by

New from HEFCE this week, a report on “Differences in Degree Outcomes:the Effect of Subject and Student Characteristics“, which looks at the outcomes of students who graduated in 2013-14. Some of this data I have previously reported when looking at HESA data on the impact of ethnicity on degree outcomes for the previous year.

The results of the HEFCE survey are not startling – they almost reinforce things that we already know in terms of what factors have an impact on achievement: the challenge now is to learn how to address each of these, and with the recent comments by the new universities minister on widening participation, and our own commitment to supporting a diverse population of students then awareness of these trends and how we then tackle them will be crucial for success of individuals and of the institution.

HEFCE considered the following variables when looking at the differences in outcomes:

  • age
  • disability status
  • ethnicity
  • The Participation of Local Areas measure (important for high WP populations)
  • sex
  • subject of study
  • prior attainment (in terms of qualifications held on entry to higher education)
  • previous school type
  • institution attended

The interesting part of the analysis is not the differences in outcomes that can be seen, but how much these differences can or cannot be explained by the influence of other factors.

Subject

Certain subjects are more likely to award 1sts/2(i)s, and the table below represents those subject we offer at Staffordshire – it will be interesting to compare our recent results with those for the sector by subject.

Subject % first or upper second % first
Subjects allied to medicine 69% 24%
Biological sciences 70% 18%
Physical sciences 73% 25%
Mathematical sciences 73% 35%
Computer science 66% 28%
Engineering and technology 74% 30%
Social studies 73% 16%
Law 69% 12%
Business and administrative studies 71% 21%
Mass communication and documentation 75% 15%
Historical and philosophical studies 82% 19%
Creative arts and design 72% 21%
Education 68% 18%
Combined 60% 16%

I always thought it was apocryphal that law didn’t award firsts – across the sector it would appear to be true!

Entry Tariff

On entry tariff, there is a clear relationship – higher entry leads to higher numbers of good degrees, which can also be seen when looking at league table data. This is one of the reasons that the Guardian league table uses a “value added” measure which seeks to adjust for entry tariff..

hefce1st1

 

Mode of Study

In general, part time students have worse outcomes compared with full time. Even adjusting for variations on entry tariff, part time students have worse outcomes than full time.

Age

The raw data shows that young students are 11 percentage points more likely to gain a good degree compared with mature entrants.

Gender

Across all entry tariffs, women are more likely to gain good degrees than men.

Disability

Graduates with a disability are slightly less likely to gain a good degree than those without a declared disability.

Ethnicity

This is the area with the biggest gap. 76% of white students gain a good degree, compared to 60% of black and minority ethnic students.

Even allowing for other factors, the unexplained gap is still equivalent to 15%.

Previous School

In most cases students from state schools outperform those from independent schools.

Neighbourhood HE Participation

Students coming from neighbourhoods with the highest rates of HE participation also gain the highest numbers of good degrees.

Implications

The recent speech by Jo Johnson referred to the importance of universities in driving social mobility and the sector’s work in widening participation.

This data provides further information that could be used to justify the costs of supporting WP in universities, and for focusing on trying to close gaps in attainment.

Much focus is given to looking at the data provided by UCAS but to understand how well the sector and individual universities are performing in terms of closing these gaps, then much fuller datasets need to be considered, taking into account retention and progression and ultimately employment – even if all our students gain the degrees they deserve, but still fail to progress into appropriate graduate roles, then social mobility isn’t realisable for everyone.

As we move into a potential quality regime that could be metrics based, together with a Teaching Excellence Framework, which will certainly use a variety of metrics (possibly including learning gain), then there will be plenty of work to be done in generating data and analysing it..

However, the focus also has to go beyond analysing data. How can we use it to understand our students both as individuals and as cohorts? How can we use data to support our staff better in teaching and assessing their students? Finally, how can we learn to change practices and behaviours based on evidence?

 

 

 

Good University Guide 2016

Posted on by

The final big league of the year was published today – the Good University Guide, which comes from the Sunday Times.

Details of methodology and subject tables are available on the Sunday Times website, behind a paywall, so won’t be discussed here, however this iteration of this guide does use the results of REF2014, and unlike the other major guides published this year uses the NSS data published last month.

Big winners this year are Harper Adams, Bath Spa, Manchester Met while biggest drops are from Arts Bournemouth, Chester, Arts London, Cardiff Met, BCU, Cumbria.

The great news for Staffordshire is that we have risen a further 6 places, which means a rise in all the league tables this year.

Our individual data shows:

Performance Measure Score Rank
Teaching Quality 81.80% 49=
Student Experience 82.80% 80=
Research Quality 16.50% 55
UCAS Entry Points 274 118
Graduate Prospects 58.40% 111
Firsts and 2(i)s 63.20% 98=
Completion Rate 78.40% 115
Student-Staff Ratio 16.8:1 59=
Services/Facilties Spend £1,620 81

Notable results for us then are our ranking in research – although we submitted a relatively small number of academics, the editorial in the paper does comment on our increased size and scope of research, noting our best results were in Sport and Exercise and with psychology scoring high for external impact.

The impact of our teaching quality score is pleasing,and if we can improve this together with the overall student experience score, we will see further improvements in this guide next year.

The new work we are doing this year to enhance student employability together with our Roadmap for Raising Attainment, both of which will be reflected in the new Learning and Teaching Strategy, will lead to further improvements in good degrees and graduate prospects.

As alluded to earlier, the tables are behind a paywall, but parts can be constructed from the press releases from the Sunday Times as below:

Name Ranking 2016 Ranking 2015 2015 National student survey Teaching excellence 2015 National student survey Student experience Graduate prospects Completion rate
(%) (%) (% in professional jobs or graduate-level study) (%)
Cambridge 1 1= 83.8 86.3 89.3 98.4
Oxford 2 1= 83.1 86.8 87.1 96.3
Imperial College 3 4 79.8 87.8 91.1 96.5
St Andrews 4 3 83.2 86.8 83.3 95.3
Durham 5 6 81.9 86.7 84.4 96.6
Warwick 6 8 79.6 85 79.8 96.7
Exeter 7 7 82.6 87.7 79.8 95.7
Surrey 8 11 86.9 90.3 78.8 92.2
LSE 9 5 72.1 78.4 78.5 94.8
University College London 10 9 74.2 81.3 83.1 94.6
Lancaster 11 12 82.3 85.4 82.5 93.5
Bath 12 10 82.7 87 85.2 96.1
Loughborough 13 13 84.5 89.3 83.7 93.2
Leeds 14 17 83.7 88 78.4 93.5
York 15 16 81.7 86.6 76 94.3
Southampton 16 18 79.3 86.5 78.1 92.5
Birmingham 17 15 80.8 84.2 86.7 94.8
East Anglia 18 14 83.2 88.8 70.3 91.9
Sussex 19 25 78.6 85 84.1 92.9
Bristol 20 19 75.5 81.5 79.6 96.6
Sheffield 21 21 81.3 87.2 75.7 94.4
Edinburgh 22 22= 74.5 82.4 78.6 91.3
Newcastle 23= 22= 82 88.4 79.1 95.1
Kent 23= 30 81.5 85.4 76.7 90.7
Nottingham 25 22= 79.5 83.9 81.3 93.2
Glasgow 26 26 80 86.9 79.3 88.4
King’s College London 27 29 73.9 79.7 85.7 92.8
Leicester 28= 20 77.5 84.4 72.1 92.5
Manchester 28= 28 79 84.7 78.5 92.9
Aston 30 34 83.3 87.9 78.8 90.9
Reading 32 33 80.5 85.8 70.3 92.3
Cardiff 33 27 80.7 86 80.1 93.4
Queen Mary 34 37 80.5 83.3 73.3 91.2
Essex 35 32 83.7 88 64.1 85.6
Royal Holloway 36 34 82.6 84.1 62.7 92.3
Dundee 37 45 84.4 87.1 80 86
Liverpool 38= 36 77.9 83.4 76.1 91.3
Heriot-Watt 38= 41 80.8 84.2 78.1 87.4
Buckingham 38= 48 88 88.4 83.4 86.3
City 41= 46 82.7 85.6 78.9 86
Swansea 41= 43 82.6 86.5 81.4 89.7
Keele 43 40 87 90.2 76.1 90.8
Soas 44 31 75.2 80.8 68.3 80.7
Aberdeen 45 44 77.4 83.7 76.2 84.1
Strathclyde 46 39 76.2 85.6 72 87.6
Coventry 47 42 87.6 89.3 74.2 85.8
St George’s 48 – 78.7 81.6 93.4 92.7
Harper Adams 49 63 82.6 89.3 73.3 90.6
Stirling 50 53 78.7 82.3 73.3 85.7
Royal Agricultural 51 – 79.3 85.6 69.7 96.3
Bangor 52 50 85.8 87.8 67.7 81.8
De Montfort 53 54 82.4 84.6 76.9 86.5
Nottingham Trent 54 52 83.6 85.8 67.6 89.6
Oxford Brookes 55 49 83.2 85.7 69.2 89.4
Falmouth 56 51 83.7 83.5 74.5 85.4
Bath Spa 58 70 85.8 85.8 55.1 89.9
Portsmouth 59 57 83.4 85.9 66.9 87.6
Brunel 60 47 78.2 83.8 63.4 87.7
Norwich Arts 61 – 83.8 83.5 63.4 88.7
Lincoln 62= 60 81.1 84.6 70.7 87.6
Creative Arts 62= 74 82.7 81.5 52 85.8
Northumbria 64= 66 82.9 85.1 66.3 87.6
Winchester 64= 61 84.2 85 60.7 85.2
Goldsmiths 66 55 76.6 76.3 56 82.4
Hull 67 58 80 83.8 66.7 86
Edge Hill 68 72 83.2 83.5 63.8 86.2
Huddersfield 69= 77= 82.2 84 74.1 83
Robert Gordon 69= 64 80.6 83.5 83.1 83.4
Chichester 69= 65 84 85.3 57.5 89.9
Sheffield Hallam 72 62 80.9 83.9 64.7 86.9
West of England 73 68 80 82.5 70.8 84.9
Liverpool John Moores 74 71 81.6 85 63.3 84.2
Bradford 75 76 78.8 84.4 75.2 83.8
Hertfordshire 76 79 78.6 82.8 75.3 86
Manchester Metropolitan 77 89 81 82.2 63 84.4
Roehampton 78 73 78 79.9 60.9 81.7
Liverpool Hope 79= – 86.8 86.4 53.9 82.8
Aberystwyth 79= 93 78.4 80.4 62.5 89.3
Arts Bournemouth 81 59 81.4 80 61.4 92.3
Northampton 82= 56 82.3 84.1 60.7 85
Bournemouth 82= 88 75.2 78.8 66.4 86
Derby 84 81 84.4 85.3 60 83.7
Middlesex 85= 75 78.7 81.8 64.9 77.8
Plymouth 85= 80 82.3 84.1 60.2 84.8
Chester 87 67 82.7 83.7 63.6 80.5
Gloucestershire 88 83 79.8 82.6 55.7 86.3
York St John 89 87 82.4 83 65.3 90.4
Brighton 90 82 78.6 80.9 66.9 86.9
Leeds Trinity 91 91 83.5 82.3 65.8 81.7
Central Lancashire 92 77= 80.4 83.5 62.4 81.6
Edinburgh Napier 93 97 80.2 83.7 69.1 81.2
Glasgow Caledonian 94 84 77 82.5 70.2 83.2
Staffordshire 95 101 81.8 82.8 58.4 78.4
Queen Margaret, Edinburgh 96 86 78.9 82.3 59.6 82.4
Abertay 97 106 80 83.1 65.6 75.5
Salford 98 105 80.1 80.9 59.5 79.5
Arts London 99 85 75.9 74.5 59.2 85.5
St Mary’s, Twickenham 100= 100 80.5 84.5 66.7 83.7
Worcester 100= 107 81.4 84.5 63.9 85.8
Teesside 102 94 82.9 84.3 59.8 80.8
Cardiff Metropolitan 103 90 79.1 81.8 59.8 82.2
Sunderland 104 99 82.5 84.2 62.3 81.4
Birmingham City 105 91 78 79.3 64.8 84.4
Greenwich 106 98 79.2 82.4 58.2 84.7
Canterbury Christ Church 107 96 80.7 81.9 57.8 82.3
Anglia Ruskin 108 110 82.5 83.9 65 79.3
Buckinghamshire New 109 116 81.5 81.1 57.6 82.5
Bedfordshire 110 108 80.4 82.7 58.3 80.1
Kingston 111 117 76.1 79.9 60.7 82.2
Bishop Grosseteste 112= 102 80.9 80.6 69.1 90
South Wales 112= 114 77.5 78.3 59 81.7
Leeds Beckett 114 111 78.5 82.7 58.5 78.8
Westminster 115= 112 72.9 80.6 55.1 80.4
Southampton Solent 115= 115 79.5 82.1 54.6 76.8
Newman 115= 104 83.1 84.6 54.6 73.3
West of Scotland 118 118 81.8 81.8 65.7 70
Cumbria 119 95 76.9 77.6 64.9 85.7
London South Bank 120 122 77 81.3 67.9 74.6
West London 121 109 76.9 77.5 60.5 73.9
Glynd?r 122 113 80.5 79.3 66.3 75.8
Bolton 123= 120 81.6 80.8 60.1 71.2
St Mark & St John, Plymouth 123= 102= 76.3 77.3 60.4 82.6
London Met 125 123 76 78.6 47.7 75.3
Highlands and Islands 126 121 78.8 76.5 56 68.6
East London 127 119 75 78.5 45.6 67.5

Jo Johnson’s Speech to UUK

Posted on by

For the second time, our Minister with responsibility for universities makes a speech on HE, this time to Universities UK and an assembled throng of Vice Chancellors. Our own VC’s impressions will be in his blog next week.

The full text of the speech is here, Higher education: fulfilling our potential, but are there any hints of what is to come?

there is considerable unfinished business and the green paper will seek views on the changes the government believes will be necessary to ensure that higher education continues to be a great national success story in the years to come

We can expect to see the Green Paper that will address this unfinished business in the current session of parliament.

The next section of the speech is about “teaching at the heart of the system”, which is different from the previous mantra of “students at the heart of the system” which has subsequently become a strapline in many a university mission statement.

At the centre of this vision are the young people contemplating their futures in a world where no one owes them a living, where they must depend on their wits and drive to survive.

Well-equipped students ready to contribute to society and to businesses keen to employ increasing numbers of skilled graduates

So once again is higher education being seen as a transactional good, rather than a transformational experience, just for young people to enter the employment market, red in tooth and claw? Even though a majority of students may be young, we need to remind ourselves that HE is not just for young people, and not just to deliver training for employment.

Moving on to talk about the proposed Teaching Excellence Framework (however with no proposals or suggestions at this stage), Johnson refers to teaching staff who go the extra mile providing feedback and email replies at weekends, as well as those who think:

we’ll award you the degree as the hoped-for job ticket in return for compliance with minimal academic requirements and due receipt of fees’

I’m sure plenty will take issue with this – although in a sector that employs over 194,000  academic staff (HESA data 2013-14), there must be a few individuals in this category although we wouldn’t expect an institution to behave overall in this way. The speech goes on to talk about the variability of student experience and:

There is extraordinary teaching that deserves greater recognition. And there is lamentable teaching that must be driven out of our system. It damages the reputation of UK higher education and I am determined to address it.

Is the comment on lamentable teaching about individuals or about entire institutions? The TEF is  to  assess an institution, not individual performances. The answer to that might provide an answer of whether solutions are to be centrally driven or can be dealt with through internal management processes and enhancement activities.

Johnson suggests that more information will be provided in future about kind of teaching that students will receive. Having been to a number of open days in other institutions recently I’v e been struck by the willingness to brag about high contact hours, with little reference to what they actually involve.

The new framework will “reward universities that do most to stretch young – and also not so young – minds”. At last a recognition that not all students are 18 years old – but the devil will be in the detail of this: how will the framework actually measure the amount of stretch? This may lead us to look at ideas of learning gain and value-added, but can this be put in place quickly enough for TEF to be ready for 2017?

Johnson asks for there to be  a shift in how we think about teaching – and in an institution that is focused more on teaching than research, then this should be good news.

Widening Participation appears as a major part of the speech – and at a time when cuts to the BIS budget are due, and many commentators suggesting that the Student Opportunity Fund which supports WP activities is likely to be under threat, then we have a series of laudable ideas but which will need money to support.

There is a clear commitment to the use of HE as a driver of social mobility with particular emphasis given to participation rates of working class white boys, and students from BME backgrounds.

Plenty of reference is made to the data provided by UCAS, which will provide the necessary information on recruitment into universities, and a comment is made about linking this to other datasets. If we are serious about being able to understand how well WP activities are working, then we need to look not just at UCAS and recruitment data, but also at information on retention, progression and achievement – only when we can see significant reductions in the differences between different groups in all of the relevant factors would we be able to say that we are making steps to increase social mobility. Much of this information is already held within universities, and plenty of them provide analysis of this to explain their outcomes.

On alternative providers, Johnson recognises that not everyone wants to study a 3 year degree, and praises the alternative provider sector in being able to offer other provision, through validation arrangements with existing universities, but suggests that the current process “stifles competition, innovation and student choice, which is why we will consult on alternative options for new providers if they do not want to go down the current validation route.”

On regulation, Johnson states that this a a deregulatory government, and the recent consultation on QA from HEFCE seemed to push towards a system of no central agency, but with increased role of governance (similar to the rise in the school sector of  Academies and removal of Local Authority control?).

So we need a simpler, less bureaucratic and less expensive system of regulation. A system that explicitly champions the student, employer and taxpayer interest in ensuring value for their investment in education and requires transparency from providers so that they can be held accountable for it. One that protects institutional autonomy and academic freedom and maintains the highest quality of higher education, safeguarding the strong international reputation of English universities

And this is clealry talking about the role of HEFCE rather than universities in countries with devolved administrations.

Overall – will this please the sector?

  • A commitment to great teaching won’t be argued with – the mechanisms of assessing it will be.
  • The change in regulation for alternative providers might be seen as a threat to some institutions (probably only those in the bottom quartile of league tables, or current FE providers of HE)
  • The focus on widening participation should be welcomed – provided that funding and full data analysis is part of the deal.

As ever, the details have yet to merge and plenty of other commentators will have more to say on this speech than I, and we will all eagerly await the Green Paper, and in particular the plans for a Teaching Excellence Framework and a renewed focus on widening participation.