/ Full archive

Formulating Practice Research Methods in Bid writing

Training

Formulating Practice Research Methods in Bid writing

In person event – 21st June 2024 – 11:00 – 13:00 – Create Lecture Theatre, Fusion building, Talbot campus.

This workshop is aimed at anyone trying to formulate funding proposals for grants that primarily follow a practice research method. It will look at how to formulate a practice research project, starting with the framing of the initial idea in relation to peers and relevant prior research/art, how to describe the methodology in a way that meets funding bodies requirements for transparency and rigour, and how to translate outputs into impact.

Attendees can be at any stage of a bid writing process, but should come with an idea that they want to work on, or past experiences that they can reflect on.

Book your place here under ‘Formulating Practice Research Methods in Bid writing – 21/06/2024’ in the drop-down menu.

BU Research Conference 2024: Powerful partnerships – book your place

Knowledge Exchange

Collaboration is at the heart of excellent research – whether it’s building relationships with international partners, co-creating research with communities, or working across disciplines to find fresh perspectives.

The BU Research Conference is back for 2024 and this year’s event will explore the power of partnerships, showcasing how working with others can enhance your research.

It will take place in the Fusion Building (Talbot Campus) on Wednesday 26th June, with a mix of speakers, panel sessions, and practical workshops.

The conference will run from 9.30am to 1.15pm, with refreshments included. It will be followed by a networking lunch to help start conversations and build new connections.

The keynote speaker for the conference will be Isabella Pereira, Head of the Institute for Community Studies – a research institute with people at its heart. Engaging with people across the UK, they work to influence societal change, bridging the gap between communities, evidence, and policymaking.

Following this will be the Building partnerships panel, with academics from across BU talking about their experiences of working with partners regionally, nationally, and internationally – as well as across different sectors and disciplines – and sharing their insights and advice on effective research collaboration.

We’ll also have a range of practical workshops, covering topics including working with business, building international partnerships, and public involvement in research.

The conference is open to all researchers and those involved in research across BU and other universities in Dorset.

Book your place via Eventbrite

HE policy update No 12: 20th May 2024

international

The year started fairly quiet and then it all took off.  There is more to come on the international student story but the big news at the end of the week was the OfS financial sustainability report (which is linked of course, to the international student story).  A report on skills and LLE suggests we need to get better at credit recognition (now where have we heard that before?  Gavin Williamson wrote to the OfS about making it a priority in February 2021 but I don’t recall anything happening – there were other things going on at that point).

All change in Parliament

According to the Institute for Government, as of 9 May 2024, 104 MPs have announced that they will not stand again at the next general election

  • 64 Conservative
  • 19 Labour
  • 9 SNP
  • 8 Independent
  • 2 Sinn Fein
  • 1 Green
  • 1 Plaid Cymru

Research misconduct

The UK Research Integrity Office has released a report about the barriers to investigating and reporting research misconduct.

There are three themes:

  • the need for every actor involved to have clarity on the relevant procedures and processes;
  • confidence that these procedures will be followed (and the relevant parties have the appropriate skills, resources and information to do so);
  • and wider shifts in research culture which destigmatises research misconduct, promotes transparency, and ensures the task at hand – to uphold the research record – remains at the heart of investigating and reporting efforts.

The report makes four proposals:

  • The adoption of standardised requirements and procedures detailing how allegations of research misconduct are investigated and reported
  • Professional research misconduct investigation training for all sectors undertaking research
  • A flagging system that promotes transparency, destigmatises allegations of research misconduct, and normalises early raising of concerns
  • National infrastructure to collect and report on research misconduct cases annually

Education

Skills Commission report

The Policy Connect Skills Commission report is out. Perhaps not surprisingly, it calls for long term joined up thinking and associated funding.  The most interesting recommendation for HE, apart from the strategic approach in the first two recommendations, which includes devolving spending for adult skills to regional authorities, is the last one, which is a working group on cross-provider credit recognition in HE to support modular and lifelong learning.

  • Recommendation 1: The Government should develop a national skills strategy that is embedded within a wider industrial strategy. It should create a Skills and Workforce Council, a non-departmental public body at arm’s length from government, to oversee the delivery of the strategy’s goals.
  • Recommendation 2: The Government should provide Mayoral Combined Authorities and other regional authorities with “no-strings-attached” funding settlements for adult skills and an enhanced set of powers to shape skills provision in their area.
  • FE:
    • Recommendation 3: Further Education colleges should receive multi-year funding settlements of 2+ years from the Education and Skills Funding Agency or, where applicable, their regional authority.
    • Recommendation 4: The Department for Education should deliver a new Further Education Workforce Strategy.
    • Recommendation 6: The Department for Education should extend the Pupil Premium Plus to looked after children and care leavers aged 16-19 in Further Education, building on the successful pilot programme.
  • Apprenticeships
    • Recommendation 5: The Government should enact a multi-pronged strategy to address the financial and educational barriers that 16-19-year-olds face when seeking to take up and complete an apprenticeship. The strategy to help young apprentices should involve:
      • Encouraging and supporting all regional authorities to introduce free travel.
      • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) exempting them from earnings-based reductions in Universal Credit and Child Benefit payments.
      • Providing a VAT exemption for their equipment purchases.
      • Providing them access to the maintenance loan system.
      • The Department for Education developing an alternative to maths & English exit requirements.
    • Recommendation 7: To increase investment in skills, all Apprenticeship Levy funding should be allocated to training and not be retained by the Treasury.
    • Recommendation 8: The Government should reform the Apprenticeship Levy. Employers should have greater flexibility to use funds for a range of high-quality training. Part of the levy should be ringfenced to promote entry-level talent in the workforce.
  • Lifelong learning
    • Recommendation 9: The Government should launch a new lifelong learning initiative that supports the “right to retrain”
    • Recommendation 10: The Department for Education should develop the digital infrastructure to underpin life-long learning. Each learner should have access to a personalised digital environment including a skills account and passport
    • Recommendation 11: The Higher Education Minister should lead a working group on cross-provider credit recognition within the higher education sector. The group should include senior figures from the sector and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

Student complaints: OIA annual report

The next sections of this update include doom and gloom about financial sustainability and more worry about limits on international students, which would make the situation worse. However, in this context it is helpful to have a reminder about student experience.  While it is a negative take, because only otherwise unresolved complaints that have exhausted university processes can be taken to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, their annual report provides a snapshot of where the sector is at.

Summary: complaints are up, mostly driven by complaints by international students.  Some stats are set out below. there is lots of useful advice on how to avoid these problems: mainly listening to students, applying processes properly and making sure that policies and communications are clear.

TEF analysis

The Office for Students have published another analysis of the TEF which focuses on strategic approaches to improvements.  Findings summarised below.  there’s a theme: it’s about impact.

Planning for and implementing success

  • … The relationship between mission and values on one hand and the strategic steps taken to improve practices on the other is not always fully articulated. However, the importance of the specific context of each provider type is evident.
  • Providers describe a range of operational frameworks employed to effect strategic change. These include frameworks for approaches to teaching, curriculum design and student assessments. It is not always made clear how wide the implementation of these frameworks is across undergraduate provision, and how they are evaluated and adjusted accordingly. In the best examples, frameworks helpfully illustrate changes to practice and their impact is evaluated with reference to internal and external data.
  • Some providers have explicitly changed the scope and content of their educational provision during the TEF period, whereas for others there appeared to be more continuity. Where changes had been made, providers typically explained the reasons for them in relation to improved impact on students. Evaluation of that impact, where provided, was helpful.
  • Providers all refer to a range of ways in which staff whose roles relate to student education, student experience and student outcomes are developed. Advance HE fellowships play an important role in structuring developmental provision, both for early career staff and with respect to continuing professional development. The relationship between developing staff and addressing challenging areas (for example, particular programmes with poor student satisfaction or outcomes, or in thematic areas such as assessment) is sometimes, but not always, made clear. Findings from evaluating staff development are not always indicated, but within 25 pages it is very difficult to include information of this kind. Some providers highlight new or changed staff roles that have made a demonstrable impact on student experience or outcomes.
  • The development of resources, estate and infrastructures has been significant for many providers in the sample. The impact of the global Covid pandemic on practice is frequently noted; the development of digital resources and online infrastructures has been a high priority, resulting in some changes to approaches to teaching and learning. Providers also describe improvements to the built environment, and these accounts of improved learning environments are most effective when their development has been related purposefully to changing modes of teaching and student engagement, and when their impact has been evaluated.
  • Providers give strong accounts of the ways in which they are embedding working with students as partners into the life of the organisation. Many providers have moved beyond simply including student representatives on committees, to developing much more comprehensive partnerships with students’ representative bodies. Examples of activities include regular student forums, ‘students as change agents’ initiatives and student ambassador schemes. Most providers also highlight the importance of maintaining and enhancing strong relationships with alumni, who can, for example, act as advisors for programme teams and as mentors for staff or students.
  • The importance of partnerships is made clear in many submissions. A range of partnerships is articulated; these may be academic, industry-related or civic. The rationale for the choice of partners is generally clear, and their impact on student experience and outcomes articulated, but more could perhaps be done, even within the page limit, to highlight evaluations of partnerships in relation to impact on students.

Evidencing, rewarding and celebrating success

  • Some providers have changed or enhanced their ‘planning and review’ frameworks. Some have adopted Theory of Change principles, which can help to pin down key purposes, actions and approaches to evaluation.
  • Providers highlight internal data, both qualitative and quantitative, to illustrate progress made in relation to TEF features. Some providers are very clear about the range of internal data available to them, how it is being gathered, how it has been improved and how key findings have been acted upon. Providers also refer to external datasets, including the published OfS data and other sources of data, for example the International Student Barometer. Providers sometimes helpfully link, compare and analyse data from different sources that relate to similar themes; again, it is difficult to do this at any length within the word limit, but key areas of development can be highlighted briefly.
  • Some providers have the capacity to undertake research studies into student education, student experience and student outcomes, which then inform practice. Some also refer briefly to published research from the sector and its relevance to their strategic steps for improvement. Such studies can provide a helpful evidence base for action, and in some cases students become partners in undertaking research, bringing their insights to bear in helpful ways. Smaller providers may benefit from collaborating in this area.
  • Many providers have improved their promotion and reward frameworks to improve the status of teaching, innovation and education-focused leadership. These are helpfully outlined, although with varying degrees of clarity with respect to the numbers of staff impacted and the ways in which this may be impacting student experience and outcomes.
  • Different approaches are taken to highlighting and promoting successes. Annual awards for staff, some or all of which are voted for by students, are highlighted as providing valuable opportunities to celebrate success and promote innovations and good practice. Providers also highlight institutional awards and rankings. The extent to which these add to the submission can be variable; context and scope of the impact recognised by the awards or rankings can be difficult to ascertain. However, there are many positive examples of promoting and celebrating excellent provision and improvements among and sometimes beyond the provider’s community.

Overall:  the TEF submissions provide credible accounts of very high quality and outstanding practices. They are strongest when links are clearly made between the planned steps, the nature and scope or the actions taken, and the evidence of improved student experience or outcomes. The use of Theory of Change principles could be helpful in establishing consistent practices with respect to embedding meaningful evaluation into all identified areas of improvement. These principles, or comparable articulations of logical strategic steps through the planning, action and evaluation process, could both help providers embed evidence-based practice in all areas of development and articulate those approaches even more clearly and succinctly in future TEF submissions.

Post-study work visas

We are expecting some sort of government response this week to last week’s MAC report recommending that the visa should stay as it is and there is visa data from the Home Office out on Thursday.  But while we wait there are other things to think about.

The FT has an article on the public perception of international students.  Citing a Survation poll:

  • A significant consensus emerges in the survey: 57 per cent of people think illegal immigration should be the priority and an even larger majority, 66 per cent, think that the post-study visa should allow international graduates to work in the UK for the two permitted years — or even longer.
  • Just 2 per cent thought that restricting the ability of students to stay in the UK and work after their studies would be a good way of tackling high immigration and only 1 per cent want the government to focus on reducing international student numbers. (For comparison, 45 per cent say that blocking small boat arrivals should be the priority.)

On Wonkhe, David Kernohan has asked why there aren’t more home PGT students.

  • PGT students (headcount) paying home fees have fallen sharply, from over 200,000 in HESES20 to just over 160,000 in 2023. This could be a decline from a pandemic-era boom, or a result of a high number of vacancies within the high-skill end of the job market, but it also represents bad news for provider incomes.
  • There’s a subject aspect to this too. The continuing absence of HESA Student 2022-23 data means we can’t be as precise as I might like, but the most notable decline is in the “D” (classroom-based, non-STEM) subjects – and I’d take an educated guess that much of the decline has been in business courses.
  • People who have completed a higher degree report a higher quality of work (a compound measure developed at HESA that includes consideration as to whether a graduate finds their work “meaningful”, whether they are using what they have learned in their studies, and whether what they are doing aligns with future plans). This is variable by subject, but offers a better insight into the wider benefits of postgraduate study (salaries or job types don’t really work when so many take postgraduate courses while already in employment).

And what would Labour do?  This from the Evening Standard gives a flavour:

  • A Labour government will recognise the “major contribution” made by international students to the UK economy and be led by evidence about its impact on immigration, shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson said. “International students make a major contribution to our country in economic terms,” she said in an interview with the Standard, pointing to their higher fees feeding into a “cross subsidy” for British students. “Alongside that, the jobs in local communities that are created and the investment that comes – that’s felt in every community right across the country that has a university,” the shadow minister said.
  • Ms Phillipson stressed: “We do want to bear down on the very high levels of net migration that we see overall. And we’ll be looking carefully at whatever the Government says in response to the Migration Advisory Committee. “But they have set out some very clear recommendations which are evidence-based, and our approach on international students will be in line with the best available evidence,” she said.
  • “The majority of students who come here have a great experience and then return home to their country of origin. And then we build those ties that endure over the long term, our standing in the world, business links.”

OfS annual financial sustainability report

The Office for Students have issued their annual sector financial sustainability report and, no surprise, it makes a grim read. Alongside this there is an insight brief

Some extracts from the main report:

  • Overall, providers are forecasting deterioration in the short- to medium-term financial outlook. Their data returns show that the sector’s financial performance was weaker in 2022-23 than in 2021-22, and is expected to decline further in 2023-24, with 40 per cent of providers expecting to be in deficit and an increasing number showing low net cashflow.
  • The sector is predicting an improvement in outlook from 2026-27 onwards, however, this position is based on significantly optimistic predictions of student recruitment for the sector as a whole. Our modelling of different recruitment rates suggests that the actual outturn position for the sector in the short and medium term is likely to be even more challenging than providers have forecast and the longer-term recovery they forecast is significantly uncertain. Without the growth assumed in providers’ student recruitment forecasts, our analysis suggests that the recovery providers are anticipating would be reversed and the financial situation would continue to weaken across the period to 2026-27 unless mitigating action is taken
  • In aggregate, the forecasts submitted by providers assume growth of 35 per cent in international student entrants and 24 per cent in UK student entrants between 2022-23 and 2026-27. The latest data on undergraduate applications and student sponsor visa applications indicates that there has been an overall decline in student entrants this year, including a significant decline in international students. This contrasts starkly with the sector’s growth forecast at an aggregate level….
  • Providers need to be ready to manage this uncertainty. They need to have plans in place to respond proactively if they are not able to achieve their student number targets and to respond to other risks that may be present in their specific context. We know that many are taking action to secure their financial position. While this can involve making difficult decisions, leadership teams are right to take action to ensure their institutions are financially sustainable over the medium to long term and to ensure they can continue to provide a high quality education to students.
  • Financial performance and strength vary significantly between providers. However, projections from the sector’s financial data show that an increasing number of providers will need to make significant changes to their funding model in the near future to avoid facing a material risk of closure. We are seeing some strong examples of this in the sector, with providers proactively identifying risk and adapting their operating model to respond to the emerging challenges. Within the information submitted by providers, there are examples of steps to improve efficiency. Many providers have put significant focus on protecting their cashflow, ensuring they are well placed to maintain their viability and are prepared for future financial risks. However, our view is that many providers will need to take additional, or more significant, action to fully respond to the financial risks that the sector is facing. It is important that providers are developing robust and realistic financial plans that incorporate stress testing and contingency planning.
  • The growth [over the last few years] in business and management, law and social sciences correlate with those subject areas that are often considered less expensive to deliver, where there is greater demand and where less specialised facilities and equipment are required for students’ learning

On Wonkhe there is a review of what it all means and the four scenarios that the OfS have used to suggest what might happen next.

Funded MRes Studentships starting September 2024

Please join us online to find out more about this opportunity – (see flyer INSIGHT SWCC flyer version 1).

The NIHR INSIGHT programme for South West Central Collaboration (SWCC) provides an opportunity for new graduates in nursing, midwifery, AHP, pharmacy, health scientists, public health,  social care and chiropractic to engage in a research programme.

This will be through funded master’s in research (MRes)programmes at either UWE-Bristol or BU.

 

TechFusion Summit – i3 Simulations (9th -10th May 2024)

The Centre for Applied Creative Technologies CfACTs and CfACTs+ teams participated in the “TechFusion Summit – i3 Simulations” hosted at MergeXR Studio in Luton. The event buzzed with innovation, creativity, and networking, illustrating how AI, XR, and haptics enable clinicians to develop muscle memory and improve decision-making through virtual simulations. The summit drew in prominent industry partners, universities, Bollywood actors, film producers, and professionals.

The summit was the exploration of content creation using VFX-quality 3D scans performed on-site. These scans were processed and showcased in captivating aged and de-aged versions of Maddy, showcasing our distinctive ability to extend Hollywood-quality VFX on a global scale for various mediums such as movies, TV series, games, and beyond. i3 Simulations is in close collaboration with BU on the CfACT+ project and has jointly co-funded two PhD projects.

Professor Jian Chang presented a talk titled “What’s Next for VFX,” delving into the evolution of visual effects, emerging technologies, and recent breakthroughs in the industry. He emphasized the NCCA’s dedication to innovation and provided insights into ongoing projects at CfACTs and CfACTs+.

Devi Kolli (Chief Executive Officer of i3simulations) at BU NCCA booth

 

Postdoctoral research fellow Dr. Nikolai Rusnachenko showcased his work on “Marking Medical Image Reports Automatically with Natural Language Processing (NLP-MMI)”. His project aims to create an automatic pipeline for clinical report generation. The primary focus is on developing NLP tools for image captioning, analyzing detected (anomalous and non-anomalous) image segments, identifying patterns, and evaluating the accuracy of narratives. This system will provide valuable feedback for trainees, helping them assess their skills and enhance their learning across various anatomical regions and disease conditions.

Also at the Summit, postdoctoral research fellow Dr. Anil Bas showcased his research on advanced rendering pipelines for 3D face and head models, which are gaining popularity in digital entertainment, gaming, and interactive media. His project tackles the limitations of current 3D facial reconstruction and rendering techniques, aiming to achieve cost, energy, and environmental savings in virtual production and 3D scanning technologies.

Dr Ehtzaz Chaudhry and Kavisha Jayathunge also engaged with the audience, showcasing the NCCA undergraduate, postgraduate, and MSc AIM student showreel at the BU NCCA booth.

CfACTs is co-funded by European Union Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 900025, Bournemouth University and Industry Partners.

For more information about CfACTs and CfACTs+ projects, please follow the links below.

www.bournemouth.ac.uk/CfACTs-Research
www.bournemouth.ac.uk/centre-applied-creative-technologies-plus-cfacts

 

2023-4 New Media Writing Prize and Unconference Success

The 2023-24 New Media Writing Prize, directed by BU’s Lyle Skains and judged by BU practitioners and researchers Dalia Elsheikh, Jim Pope, and Brad Gyori has drawn to a close after a bright and exciting two days of creative “Unconferencing”, a brilliant and thought-provoking keynote on generative AI and electronic literature from Professor Anastasia Salter, and the announcement of all winners for this year’s prizes. The keynote and awards ceremony are available on YouTube for anyone who missed them.

This year the events were moved to May from January to fit better with semester timetables and activities around the Bournemouth Writing Prize. This move proved fortunate as we saw our entries nearly double this year over previous years, with 194 eligible works submitted from 45 different countries. Our judges certainly needed the extra time to review and debate the wealth of high quality submissions of interactive digital narrative and journalism.

world map showing pins in 45 different countries

Geographical origins for 194 entries to the 2023-24 New Media Writing Prize

The Awards

All works are accessible on the 2023 NMWP website.

Chris Meade Memorial Main Prize

Our judges shortlisted eight works for the main prize; Florence Walker’s I Dreamt of Something Lost topped the category:

  • WINNER – I Dreamt of Something Lost by Florence Walker
  • A Condensed History of Australian Camels by David Thomas Henry Wright, Louis Pratt, Karen Lowry, Chris Arnold
  • Congee by Rebecca Chui
  • Infinite Eddies by Siobhan O’Flynn
  • L and the Empress of Sand by Jon Stone
  • Musselled Out by Dolly Church, Elinor Kirchwey, Eamon Foreman, Niall Tessier-Lavigne
  • The Hotline by Kasey Gambling
  • Voices by Christine Wilks

Writers Online Student Prize

  • WINNER – Polterkicks by Emma Husa
  • An Undecided Fate by Drew Ott
  • I Dreamt of Something Lost by Florence Walker
  • Meow Memoir by Brynna Hosszu
  • What Remains? by Vegard Fotland
  • Words So Much Like Ivy by Chris Pang

Social Good Prize

2023-24 marks the very first year this prize has been awarded; it is supported entirely by the associated NMWP Unconference. The focus on interactive digital narrative for the purposes of social good or addressing global challenges (such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals) is drawn from Lyle Skains’ research into the creation and efficacy of interactive narrative to inspire attitude and behaviour change on topics of socio-cultural, medical, and ecological importance.

  • WINNER – Musselled Out by Dolly Church, Elinor Kirchwey, Eamon Foreman, Niall Tessier-Lavigne
  • A Condensed History of Australian Camels by David Thomas Henry Wright, Louis Pratt, Karen Lowry, Chris Arnold
  • The Hotline by Kasey Gambling
  • Tree-Person by Talita Bedinelli
  • Voices by Christine Wilks

Opening Up Prize

  • WINNER – all the borders I crossed without you by Rosalind Fielding
  • Crowbar by Dylan Spicer
  • Infinite Eddies by Siobhan O’Flynn
  • Memory Eternal (Вічная Пам’ять) (2023) by the Decameron Collective
  • The Hotline by Kasey Gambling
  • Voices by Christine Wilks

FIPP Media Journalism Prize

  • WINNER – SOS – SAVE OUR SOILS by Marius Münstermann
  • Choking Kurdistan by Tom Brown
  • Terraforming Singapore: Is the future made of sand? by Zafirah Zein
  • The illusion of prosperity by Katerina Afanasyeva

Unconference Report

Anastasia Salter’s keynote (viewable on YouTube) capped off the Unconference and transitioned us to the awards ceremony. Their insights on generative AI and how it is already influencing electronic literature (another wave of software reproducing social bias and inequality) even while offering the next step in the evolution of creative tools were both concerning and exhilarating—perhaps a perfect note to strike in an Unconference themed around inclusivity.

Our second annual Unconference unfolded over two days leading up to the NMWP Award Ceremony. 40 creatives, academics, and students attended from across the world, including the UK, USA, Canada, India, Norway, and Mexico.

As a more creatively-focused event, the Unconference focuses on workshops and performances, with relevant academic talks dispersed throughout. We learned fundamentals of programming, how to create a GitHub website, and considerations for creating interactive digital narratives with purpose (such as wellbeing).

We were also treated to electronic poetry, a preview of the very first Indian anthology of electronic literature, Instagram storytelling, and discussions of art and health.

We played together in netprov (improvisational, collaborative online storytelling), spitballed approaches to teaching electronic literature and making it more accessible, and became Wikipedia editors as we seek to grow elit’s representation on this foundational site of knowledge.

Impact champion needed for engineering: one week to apply

Research assessment

We are looking to recruit an impact champion to help support our REF submission in UOA 12 (the Unit of Assessment for Engineering). The deadline for expressions of interest is Friday 24th May 2024.

This is an exciting opportunity to play a key role in supporting colleagues to develop impact case studies for submission to REF 2029 in late 2028. The successful applicant will be allocated an agreed proportion of time to devote to the role as part of their workload planning.

Impact champions work closely with the UOA lead and their impact advisor in RDS to develop and support potential impact case studies. They also become a member of the REF Impact Subcommittee, where they are able to discuss impact strategies, planning and best practice with colleagues across all faculties and disciplines.

“The role is about planting the seeds to get researchers thinking about the impact their work might have in the future (as well as the impact they have already had, sometimes without realising!)” Dr Rafaelle Nicholson – UOA 24 Impact Champion

This role is recruited through an open and transparent process, which gives all academic staff the opportunity to put themselves forward. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome.

How to apply

All those interested should put forward a short case (suggested length of one paragraph), explaining why they are interested in the role and what they believe they could bring to it. This should be emailed to ref@bournemouth.ac.uk by Friday 24th May 2024.

Further details on the impact champion role, the process of recruitment and selection criteria can be found here:

Role Descriptor

Process and criteria for selection

For more information, please contact ref@bournemouth.ac.uk, or UoA 12 Leader Professor Zulfiqar Khan.

 

 

NIHR INSIGHT Programme for South West Central

We are delighted to be able to advertise the NIHR INSIGHT programme for South West Central Collaboration (SWCC) with our internal stakeholders – Inspiring new graduates in nursing, midwifery, AHP, pharmacy, health scientists, public health,  social care and chiropractic into research.

This will be through funded master’s in research (MRes) programmes at UWE-Bristol and BU.  Further details will be posted on our web pages shortly.

At the moment we can send this information out to our stakeholders – but not via social media. NIHR INSIGHT will have an official launch in mid June.

Find more:INSIGHT SWCC flyer version 1

HARMONY 3: CREATING HEALTH AND HARMONY IN DORSET

A rich showcase of passionate organisations and individuals that create health and harmony in Dorset in their own special way.

5th June 2024: Fusion Building

https://harmony3.eventbrite.co.uk

HARMONY 3: CREATING HEALTH AND HARMONY IN DORSET 

A rich showcase of passionate organisations and individuals that create health and harmony in Dorset in their own special way.

harmony3.eventbrite.co.uk

 

 

GREEN HALO CONFERENCE: NATIONAL PARKS FOR HEALTH – A NATURAL HEALTH SERVICE.

Join the Green Halo Partnership Conference to explore the role of our National Parks as the nation’s ‘Natural Health Service’

12th June 2024: Brockenhurst

Eventbrite link

 

 

BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURE: SPEAKING UP FOR BABIES CONFERENCE:

This promises to be an insightful day where we’ll engage in community-wide discussions to empower confident advocacy for infants across all sectors. This event aims to bring together professionals, academics, students, volunteers, and parents in discussions to shape policies, plans, and services for unborn children and infants with an aim to create a brighter future for our emerging generations Dorset. 

11th June 2024 / Time: 9am – 12pm /  Bournemouth University

Eventbrite link

Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) 2024 – Closing today

PG research

Still time to have your say

Final call for PGRs to complete this year’s Advance HE Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) which closes today!

Don’t miss the chance to tell us about your experience at Bournemouth University by taking part in the Advance HE Postgraduate Research Experience Survey which closes on Thursday 16 May 2024 at 23:59. We are keen to make sure our PGRs have the best possible experience while studying at Bournemouth University. To do this, we need to know what you think works well and what as a university we could do better.

So far 44% of PGRs at BU have taken part in the survey. A huge THANK YOU to those who have submitted feedback, we are really grateful for your responses!

If you have not completed the survey, please complete this by accessing the unique link that has been emailed to you from the Doctoral College. This has been sent to both your student and staff email.  

Once you have completed the survey:

  • Prize draw – upon completing the survey, you will automatically be entered into a free prize draw. Four winners will be able to claim a £50 shopping voucher. Terms and conditions apply.
  • BU Chartwells voucher – you are entitled to claim a voucher worth £3.20 to use at any BU Chartwells outlet. Please come to the Doctoral College (DLG08, Talbot Campus) to collect your voucher. If you are unable to find your screenshot showing you have completed the survey, do to worry, just come to the office and we will get your voucher to you.

In addition, we will be making a £1 donation for every survey completed to the student mental health wellbeing charity, Student Minds.

The survey is anonymous and will only take around 15 minutes.

Please take part this year and share your experience of being a student with us. If you have any difficulties or questions about the survey, please email PRES@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Best wishes,

The Doctoral College

RKEDF: Two Post Award sessions coming up in June!

Post-award, Training

Principal Investigation – Post Award for RKE – Wednesday, June 5, 2024 – 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM – Talbot Campus

This session is aimed at any researcher who is, who plans to be, a Principal Investigator for an externally funded research or knowledge exchange project.

By the end of the session, attendees will have a strong foundation of what to expect when being responsible for their awarded projects.

Book your place here under ‘Principal Investigation – Post Award for RKE – 05/06/2024’ in the drop-down menu.

Introduction to RED – The Research & Enterprise Database – Thursday, June 6, 2024 – 10:00 AM – 10:30 AM – Online

This session is aimed at all academics to provide an overview of the Research & Enterprise Database, including how to access the system, the information available to view, budget management via RED,

and how to use RED to identify your supporting pre and post award officers.

Book your place here under ‘Introduction to RED – The Research & Enterprise Database – 06/06/2024’ in the drop-down menu. 

HE policy update No 11: Migration Advisory Committee special

international

The Migration Advisory Committee review is out!

The report was released on 14th May as planned.

Firstly, because you are all interested in this, the recommendations,  Worth reading and set out (in more detail but lightly summarised) at the end of this update, but broadly:

  • They propose keeping the post study work visa because numbers will fall anyway as a result of the other changes (dependants for students and salary thresholds for skilled workers) will reduce the numbers of students coming and those staying for the long term in any event.  They note the impact on universities of removing it, particularly universities outside London and the South East in the context of no increase in tuition fees.
  • The government wants the graduate visa route to support the UK labour market (mainly graduate roles and STEM, they are not happy about international students working in non graduate roles in social care). In response to this, rather than suggesting subject level caps, as some had predicted, they merely suggest that the government and the sector should “collaborate” on integrating international students into work in priority sectors.
  • But there are some recommendations for change, particularly in relation to agents and data monitoring. On agents, they recommend that “universities should be required to publish data on their spend on international recruitment agents and the number of students recruited through agents annually”.  They also suggest that the voluntary code for agents is probably insufficient and therefore recommend a mandatory registration system for international recruitment agents and subagents which includes quality controls, and enforced removal of agents from the system for compliance breaches, and a data sharing framework to monitor compliance.  They want universities to have to say which agent they have used on a CAS application.
  • On data, they want universities, who already have to report completion of a programme, to report on degree class. This would inform applications to the Graduate route.  They want the Home Office to sort out its own data and use HMRC data.

It is also important to note that the introduction makes it clear that they do not believe that there is significant abuse of the Graduate route.

Context: The MAC quote the government’s purpose when setting up the graduate route:

  • In 2021, the Home Office outlined the key objectives of the Graduate route. It is worth quoting this in full: “The Graduate route is introduced to enhance the offer to international students who choose, or are considering choosing, to study in the UK. It is intended to retain their talent upon graduation thus contributing to the UK economy. Through increasing the attractiveness of the UK as a destination of study, the policy will ensure the UK remains internationally competitive, assist to achieve the Government’s ambition to increase the number of international students in higher education and increase the value of education exports.

The questions: the committee summarise their instructions (important because of what has been said since)

  • The letter made clear the intent of the government to continue attracting “the brightest and best” international students to study in the UK consistent with the International Education Strategy, and the important role the Graduate route has played in this ambition. However, there was a concern in the commissioning letter that the Graduate route may be attracting migrants to come to the UK primarily for post-study work opportunities, rather than to access a quality education and the secondary opportunity to gain experience in the UK labour market.
  • The government asked us to provide evidence in answer to 5 questions:
    1. Any evidence of abuse of the route including the route not being fit for purpose (covered in Chapter 3); (see above; no)
    2. Who is using the route and from what universities they graduated (covered in Chapter 1);
    3. Demographics and trends for students accessing a study visa and subsequently accessing the UK labour market by means of the Graduate route (covered in Chapters 1 and 2) (see above);
    4. What individuals do during and after their time on the Graduate route and whether students who progress to the Graduate route are contributing to the economy (covered in Chapter 2); and,
    5. Analysis of whether the Graduate route is undermining the integrity and quality of the UK Higher Education system. This includes an understanding of how the Graduate route is or is not effectively controlling the quality of international students, such that it is genuinely supporting the UK to attract and retain “the brightest and best”, contributing to economic growth, and benefiting British higher education and soft power – in the context of the government’s wider International Education Strategy (covered in Chapters 3 and 4)

Recommendations:

The future of the Graduate route

…. Based on our analysis, the Graduate route is broadly achieving its objectives and supporting the International Education Strategy. We recommend retaining the Graduate route in its current form.

In making this recommendation, our key considerations follow.

  • The government’s concerns about misuse of the route and its aim to reduce net migration:
    1. The restrictions on dependants on the Student route only came into force in January 2024. This change of policy on the Student route is in effect a restriction to the Graduate route, as dependants are only eligible for the Graduate route if they have been dependants on the Student route. Early indications show that this change will reduce the number of international students coming to study in the UK later this year, though it is not yet possible to assess the full impact given its recent implementation. In time, this change should reduce the numbers of both main applicants and dependants on the Graduate route as the student cohorts move into the route.
    2. We also expect the share of people moving from the Graduate route to long-term work visas in the UK to decline due to significant increases in salary thresholds on the Skilled Worker route. It is possible that this could potentially disproportionately affect some groups of international students and we would expect that the Home Office would have considered this whilst conducting an Equalities Impact Assessment before changes were made to the route.
  • The impact of closing or further restricting the route on the higher education sector:
    1. Under the current higher education funding model, closure or additional restrictions could put many universities at financial risk. There has been a substantial fall in the real value of domestic fees since their introduction and many HE providers are becoming increasingly reliant on international student fees as the business model to fund increasing losses on domestic student provision (driven primarily by inflation) and research. If the government were to prioritise different objectives and restrict the route significantly, it should only do so once the full impact of the change to the dependants rules on the Student route and therefore the Graduate route can be seen and once it has addressed the current HE funding model which is driving the dependence on international student fees.
  • The government’s levelling up agenda:
    1. Based on where the expansion of student numbers has occurred and the reliance of regional economies upon universities, a decrease in international student numbers due to the restriction or closure of the Graduate route could disproportionately impact local and regional economies outside London and the South East.
  • For these reasons, our recommendation is to retain the Graduate route in its current form.
    1. However, we do suggest that greater collaboration between government and the HE sector could be fostered to support the government’s desired labour market objectives for the route. International graduates provide a potential pool of underutilised labour and could be better integrated into priority occupations and sectors. Universities benefit from the Graduate route, and they could further support the integration of international graduates into work and do more to raise awareness of the route among employers.

International Recruitment Agents and the Agent Quality Framework (AQF)

  • It is important to protect international students from abuse and exploitation and to ensure that UK HE and our available study routes are being represented accurately by international recruitment agents. While we recognise the valuable role that many agents play in supporting international students and HE providers, we have heard from student representatives and Graduate visa holders about poor practice amongst some agents and sub-agents, such as providing misleading information about UK HE to prospective students.
  • There is limited transparency around the extent to which universities are using agents. We recommend that universities should be required to publish data on their spend on international recruitment agents and the number of students recruited through agents annually as a starting point to improving disclosure.
  • Whilst we welcome the voluntary Agent Quality Framework (AQF) to control for the quality of agents going forward, the current lack of a mandatory data sharing framework makes it difficult to understand which agents are working in the best interests of UK HE and students and the scale of poor practices. Based on experience of voluntary schemes within the immigration system, there is insufficient evidence that this voluntary code will prove effective against deliberate poor practice. We recommend that the government establishes a mandatory registration system for international recruitment agents and subagents which encompasses the quality controls in the voluntary AQF, consulting with the Devolved Administrations to ensure UK-wide coverage. Where agents and subagents are shown to have engaged in non-compliance, they should be removed from the system.
  • We also recommend that a new data sharing framework encompassing key parties including universities, the British Council, and UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI), should be established to monitor agent and subagent practices effectively. This could include a requirement for universities to submit which agent has been used in an application for a Certificate for Acceptance of Study, allowing UKVI to collect comprehensive data on agents.

Recommendations on data and monitoring

  • …. the introduction of the Graduate route in 2021 was a major policy change and we find it extraordinary that the government appeared to have very limited plans for data collection, monitoring and evaluation when the route was launched. Until this review, there was for example no data readily available looking at what universities those on the Graduate route had attended. In future, we recommend that the government should only open new migration routes or make significant policy changes when it has a clear plan for how it will collect and monitor data to assess the effectiveness of the route against its objectives and understand wider impacts. ….
  • We also recommend that the Home Office introduces a requirement for universities to provide confirmation of the course outcome (e.g. class of degree) on the Student route, in addition to confirmation that a course has been successfully completed which is currently required. This should be part of the process for international students applying for the Graduate route, and that the data are collected in a way that will enable statistical analysis. This will enable an understanding of whether the government’s objective of retaining talented students has been achieved.
  • We have also come across significant issues on the misunderstanding or mislabelling of Home Office data, … We recommend the Home Office undertakes a review of the data variables used for analytical purposes across the largest visa routes (including the Skilled Worker route, Student route and Graduate route) to develop a clear definition of what these data represent, and the quality of each variable collected. …We recommend that the government explore and make further use of the HO/HMRC matched data. … Data which follows the migrant journey over time linking between visas and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) earnings data is useful for analysing long term migrant progression and impact over time. …

Other data

Alongside the report, the Home Office published some data on migrants use of the Graduate route

Student perspectives

The Home Office also published some research on the sponsored study route to understand the broader context including the motivation of students and HEI perspectives.

So what next?

Well of course, just because the MAC report says keep the post study work visa doesn’t mean that the government will.  There appeared, from some of the media reports, to be a fair level of unhappiness with the outcome of the report.  There was a distinct lack of formal response though.  Those in the sector rushing to celebrate should be cautious.

The BBC:

  • The prime minister thinks there is “further to go” to bring down legal migration numbers, according to Rishi Sunak’s spokesman. “British students should be the priority for our education system and universities – and student visas must be used for education, not immigration,” he said. “We are focused on driving down migration whilst ensuring the UK attracts the best and the brightest.”

That sounds like doubling down.

The FT:

  • Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is still looking to restrict the UK’s graduate visa scheme to cut legal migration to Britain, even after he was strongly advised by the government’s migration adviser not to abolish the programme. Sunak’s spokesperson has insisted ministers were not obliged to accept recommendations from the independent Migration Advisory Committee.
  • …Senior Tories have been divided over whether to restrict the route. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and education secretary Gillian Keegan have privately lobbied to retain the scheme in light of the severe financial strain many universities are under, said people familiar with the matter. But former migration minister Robert Jenrick and former health minister Neil O’Brien, who released a scathing report attacking the Tory government’s legacy on migration last week, criticised the MAC’s findings. Both former ministers argued on social media platform X that the report was guided by misleading parameters set by the government. This included not asking the MAC to review the government’s goal of attracting 600,000 foreign students per year and asking it to assess the extent of abuse in the visa system, rather than the social and economic impact of this type of migration. Jenrick and O’Brien reiterated calls for the graduate route to be scrapped immediately.
  • …Industry figures cited in the report indicated the number of international students paying a deposit to study in the UK had fallen 57 per cent in May compared with a year earlier.

The Guardian

  • The report’s release has stoked an internal Conservative party row over net migration, with senior rightwing MPs describing it as a “whitewash”.
  • Robert Jenrick, a former immigration minister, wrote that the committee’s inquiries were tightly controlled by the commission from James Cleverly, the home secretary. “The MAC’s conclusions have clearly been constrained by the narrow terms of reference deliberately set by the government. If you order white paint, you get a whitewash,” he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
  • Neil O’Brien, a Tory MP who is an ally of Jenrick, described the report as a “whitewash” on Substack: “We are pursuing an arbitrary target, and the expansion of universities for their own sake.”
  • Another Conservative MP said backbenchers were “piling pressure” on Rishi Sunak to ignore the committee’s conclusions.
  • The government has so far declined to say whether it will accept the MAC recommendations. A source close to the home secretary said he would read the review thoroughly and listen to Prof Brian Bell, the committee’s chair, carefully before he makes any decision. They were due to meet on Tuesday afternoon.

Wonkhe has a piece summarising the findings which notes:

  • Whether government will issue a suitably studied response is the next question for the sector. Next week’s Office for National Statistics data will bring a headline figure for net migration in 2023, a number which UK politics seems to have lost the ability to contextualise over the last few bi-annual releases, opening itself up instead to a furious buffeting from the press.

Research Professional also has a piece by Nick Hillman

  • I am not a natural fan of the Migration Advisory Committee. It is said to be “independent” but has often seemed part and parcel of Whitehall—more specifically, the Home Office.
  • The chair and members are picked by the Home Office, who decide the terms of reference of the committee and the work it undertakes, while the secretariat includes Home Office officials.
  • But on this occasion, I am happy to eat my hat. The MAC has begun to strike out on its own. Even though it didn’t want the graduate route introduced in the first place, it now wants it kept in place. It has even floated some sensible-sounding—and, in truth, probably overdue—ideas on regulating agents. These could maintain confidence in the pathways followed by potential international students, although they won’t placate the Tory right.
  • …There are two possible responses from ministers and the opposition to the MAC. One would be to throw their toys out of the pram. When advisers don’t give the advice that ministers want, they can be sacked and the government can do as it pleases. But another response would be to recognise the MAC has indeed come of age and that the child sometimes knows better than the parent.

RKEDF: Two exciting Impact workshops in June!

Training

Friday, June 7, 2024 – 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM – Online – Creating your impact development plan

For researchers at all career stages and at all stages of the project lifecycle – from formulating research questions and preparing grant applications to developing a potential impact case study.

This practical workshop provides the tools, advice and time to start putting together your own plan to achieve impact.

Book your place here under ‘Impact Essentials: Creating your Impact Development Plan – 07/06/2024’ in the drop-down menu

Thursday, June 27, 2024 – 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM – Online – Evidencing Impact

This interactive online session is aimed at researchers at all stages of their careers who wish to learn how to provide evidence for the impact of their research – whether for funders’ reports or future REF impact case studies.

Participants will learn how to evaluate and evidence the impact of their research as it occurs.

Book your place here under ‘Impact Essentials: Evidencing Impact – 27/06/2024’ in the drop-down menu

For any queries regarding these workshops, please contact RKE Dev Framework 

HE policy update No 10: 13th May 2024

international

Research and knowledge exchange

The National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB) looked at the ONS data on R&D spending and drew some stark conclusions

  • According to ONS data released today the UK experienced a 3.4% increase in real terms in government R&D spending in 2022, from £14.98 billion to £15.49 billion. This growth level, however, is significantly less than other OECD nations.
  • Dr Joe Marshall, Chief Executive of the National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB) said: “Whilst government spending in R&D has grown from £14.98 billion in 2021 to £15.49 billion in 2022, some 3.4% growth in real terms, we still lag behind the OECD average of a 6% investment growth. This should ring alarm bells. The UK’s global R&D competitiveness will slip if we do not keep up with the growth seen around the world.”
  • Marshall concluded: “This comes against a backdrop of worrying trends in private investment in research and development. Around the world, private R&D investment rose by an average of 5% in real terms in 2022 across the OECD, with even higher growth in countries such as the US, Japan and South Korea. However, private R&D investment in the UK actually declined by 0.4%. We therefore face an uphill battle to fully capitalise on our R&D potential. By fostering an environment conducive to innovation and collaboration, the UK can position itself as a leader in R&D, driving economic prosperity and societal advancement.”

Education

Admissions

UCAS has announced some changes to the information provided on their system to support students with making their choices. You will recall that UUK issued a Fair Admissions Code a while ago which recommended, among other things, that actual (rather than advertised) entry grades should be published to students. The new UCAS data will include historic entry grades and offer rates.

Teaching Excellence Framework: the post mortem continues

The QAA have analysed the TEF results in what might be read as a guide to getting gold next time.

Degree apprenticeships

The House of Commons Library has published a research briefing: these are always interesting as they provide a survey of the latest data.

Funding: The existing apprenticeship funding system for England has been in place since May 2017. Apprenticeships are generally funded in the following way.

  • Each apprenticeship standard is associated with a funding band. The upper limit of this band represents the maximum the Government will contribute towards training and assessment costs of the apprenticeship.
  • Employers and training providers negotiate a price for training and assessment.
  • Apprenticeship levy funds will be used to pay for the training and assessment for employers paying the levy (up to the upper limit of the funding band).
  • Employers who do not pay the levy will pay 5% of the cost of training and assessment with the government contributing the remaining 95% (up to the upper limit of the funding band). The Government will fund all of the apprenticeship training costs, up to the funding band maximum, for apprentices who are aged between 16 and 21 years old when they start their apprenticeship.
  • Training and assessment costs above the upper limit of the funding band will be paid for separately by the employer. Levy paying employers will not be able to use levy funds.
  • Additional payments may be paid to the employer and training provider depending on the characteristics of the apprentice and the type of apprenticeship.

Apprentices are paid at least the minimum wage for their work and study/training time. This rate depends on the apprentice’s age and whether or not they have completed the first year of their apprenticeship.

Note this bit on page 32 of the briefing:

  • In 2022, a literature review of all the available evidence of the impact of degree apprenticeships on social mobility and productivity was published and said, “when it comes to social mobility, the results are mixed”. However, it argued that, overall, degree apprenticeships were having “a notable positive impact on social mobility.”60 It suggested reports that would challenge this conclusion were published during the infancy of the degree apprenticeship programme, when employers focussed on upskilling their current workforce, rather than recruiting direct school leavers.
  • Nevertheless, it also said achieving equity in access to degree apprenticeships in some sectors may remain a challenge for a while, and so recommended the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), with the support of sector organisations, should formulate policies and guidelines for recruitment from under-represented backgrounds, and encourage stronger collaboration between employers and training providers in recruitment and enrolment.

Degree apprenticeships are not really reaching the students from the most deprived backgrounds nor those from non-white ethnic groups. There are slightly more males doing them than HE. Unsurprisingly (given the common perception that they are often taken up by existing employees) the age profile is older.

And what are they studying? Mostly business, administration and law, or health, public services and care.

Office for Students key performance metrics

Did you know that the Office for Students has key performance metrics and that they are not all about how the OfS is doing in meeting its own internally set deadlines or such like. In fact they relate mostly to how the sector is doing in meeting the requirements imposed under the licence regime.

So, for example, key performance measure 1 is the extent of poor student outcomes across the sector: where poor is below the B3 threshold.

Something I haven’t talked about for a while is grade inflation. A hot topic a while ago although things have gone rather quiet, and probably something that will come back up again sooner rather than later.  the last analysis was published in May 2022.  You’ll remember its interesting use of the term “unexplained”: “The term ‘unexplained’ in this context means that changes in attainment over the time period cannot be statistically accounted for by changes in the characteristics of the graduating cohort, in terms of the explanatory variables included in the statistical modelling. It is not possible to deduce from this analysis what factors not included in the modelling (such as improvements in teaching quality or more diligent students) could also be driving the observed changes in degree attainment.”

As the OfS website says “KPM 3 shows that the proportion of students awarded first class degrees in 2021-22 was 32.5 per cent. This proportion had increased every year between 2010-11 and 2020-21, but in 2021-22 it decreased for the first time from a high of 37.0 per cent in 2020-21.”

In that context it is interesting to look at KPM 7: “the proportions of graduates within broad ethnic groups who achieve first class degrees and compares these to the proportion of all students receiving a first class degree”

KPM 5 is about disadvantaged groups accessing HE. The usual data that is discussed in this context uses percentages and is confusing when overall numbers change. This view gives the absolute numbers and it is sad to see how stable the numbers are for the economically precarious and significantly disadvantaged groups and both these numbers went down in 21-22. Those were pandemic years: maybe when this data is updated for 22-23 there will have been an improvement.

Student experience, wellbeing and finances

Cost of living

HEPI have a new report on cost of living, having calculated a minimum income standard for students and then looking at the implications.

Key findings:

  • Excluding rent, students need £244 a week to have a minimum acceptable standard of living. Including rent, students need £366 a week.
  • Adjusting in line with rent prices in different parts of the UK, it is estimated that students need £18,632 a year outside London and £21,774 a year in London to reach MIS.
  • For a student studying outside London, the maximum government maintenance support, provided to support students to meet their living costs, falls short by £8,405 for English students, £6,482 for Welsh students, £7,232 for Scottish students and £10,496 for Northern Irish students.
  • For those studying outside of London, the maintenance support in England covers just 55% of the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) developed here. The Welsh maintenance support covers 65%, Scottish support covers 61% and Northern Irish support covers just 44% of MIS.
  • For students studying in London, the gap is £8,426 if a student is from England, with the loan covering 61% of students’ costs. The gap is £6,604 if they are from Wales (support covers 70% of costs), £10,374 if they are from Scotland (support covers 52%) and £10,922 if they are from Northern Ireland, where support covers just 50% of students’ living costs.
  • Even a student doing 10 hours a week of paid employment for the whole year and in receipt of the maximum maintenance support will not have enough money to reach MIS. English students must work nearly 19 hours a week at minimum wage, Welsh students more than 14 hours, Scottish students 16 hours and Northern Irish students 23 hours to reach MIS. By contrast, many universities recommend students should work no more than 15 hours during term-time.
  • The parents of an English student who receives the minimum maintenance support and does no paid employment would have to contribute £13,865 a year for the student to reach MIS. For a Welsh student, the contribution is £6,482; for a Scottish student, it is £10,232; and for a Northern Irish student, it is £13,548.
  • Additionally, under the current system, parents in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are expected to contribute to their children’s living costs even if they do not themselves have enough money for a minimum acceptable standard of living.

We recommend that:

  • The maximum level of government support should be increased in all four UK nations to help students reach MIS.
  • However, government maintenance support should not cover all students’ expected costs. Instead, they might reasonably be expected to do some part-time work (though not so much it interferes with their studies). The suggestion in the report is around 10 hours per week, all year, which is roughly equivalent to working full-time over the summer holiday. Adjustments should be made for students who cannot work, due to high workloads, they have a disability that prevents them from working or other reasons.
  • Parents should not be expected to contribute to their children’s living costs unless they have a minimum acceptable standard of living. This means the household income threshold at which parents are expected to start paying should be increased. Currently this stands at £25,000 in England, £21,000 in Scotland and £19,203 in Northern Ireland (parents are never expected to contribute in Wales).

Harassment and sexual misconduct consultation

As I was talking about OfS KPIs, I checked the date of the consultation on regulating harassment and sexual misconduct. It closed on 4th May 2023, so over a year ago. But is it due soon? It may be, as hinted in the next segment.

Protests and free speech

All universities have received a letter in the context of the current student protests asking them to be very careful about protecting students from harassment. Some university leaders were also called to Downing Street to be told to sort out their own campus protests: the same has been happening in the US. This is a very difficult area, with new freedom of speech guidance under consultation. It’s not clear who was called in: “some of the country’s leading universities,” apparently.

There’s also more money to support the University Jewish Chaplaincy Service.

This story from Wonkhe, suggests the consultation response on harassment and sexual misconduct may be out soon: The Office for Students’ powers to prevent harassment will be used to levy sanctions on universities that allow antisemitic reports on campus, according to reports in The Times. A government source has indicated that conditions of registration requiring universities to have robust policies to prevent student harassment will explicitly include Jewish students (in the light of recent protests), and would allow the OfS to investigate claims of antisemitism at individual universities.

NSS changes

The OfS are consulting on changes to the NSS, although really they are consulting on why they shouldn’t make any changes!  the consultation is tantalising headed “theme measures, benchmarking and response thresholds,” but questions 2 and 3 are “tell us if you object to our decision not to change benchmarking and response thresholds”.  And question 1? Drumroll….it requests comments on merging the current academic support and organisation and management questions into one theme. The themes are not named in this proposal. As a reminder, these sets of questions were slimmed down in last year’s NSS with two being dropped from academic support and the timetabling question being dropped from organisation and management, and no new questions added, so you can see why a tidy mind would want to merge these 4 questions into a single set.  And the reason it matters is that last year there were no comparative data sets published because the questions had changed: but this year they will be able to show trends from last year, so the categories (listed as experimental last year) need to be confirmed. ICYMI, the NSS results for this year will be out on 10th July.

International

Security risks

There was a flurry in the news (Foreign states targeting UK universities, MI5 warns – BBC News) a couple of weeks ago about VCs (from the Russell Group” beng called to Downing Street to discuss threats from foreign states. It follows this in mid-April from the FT

  • UK university vice-chancellors will be summoned for a briefing from the intelligence agencies on hostile states targeting British academia, as the government proposes a crackdown on security risks facing the sector.
  • Oliver Dowden, deputy prime minister, on Thursday said the government would examine new curbs to protect sensitive technology developed in UK universities from being transferred to overseas competitors such as China.
  • Ministers will also consider measures to prevent British institutions becoming too dependent on foreign investment, following a Whitehall review into security threats to UK academia.

There is existing guidance from UUK on sensitive research material.

Post-study work visa

The Migration Advisory Committee is due to provide its rather rapid review of the post-study work visa on 14th May, which is expected to result in further restrictions ahead of a general election.  I will do a specific summary of that when it is published.

In that context, the Centre for Policy Studies has published a report “Taking Back Control” written by former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick MP, former minister Neil O’Brien MP, and CPS Research Director Karl Williams.  Most of it is not about HE, but the 36 recommendations, which can apparently be mostly implemented before the election, include:

  • We should introduce an overall cap on sponsored study routes
  • We should abolish the Graduate route outright. Foreign students who want to stay in the UK should need to find graduate-level jobs that meet the salary threshold within a six-month grace period at the end of their studies. The MAC is conducting a review into the Graduate route – which it recommended against in the first place – but we should act immediately, ahead of the September 2024 and January 2025 start dates for university courses.
  • We should make universities accountable for their international students: where there is evidence of sustained abuse (such as very high dropout rates, low attendance and a drop in academic standards) they should be struck off the list of licensed study visa sponsors. We should focus initially on reviewing the 18 satellite campuses of non-London universities in London, which are geared towards international students on Masters courses of dubious quality.
  • We should substantially revise the International Education Strategy (IES), ending the arbitrary 600,000 a year target for the number of international students. The IES instead needs to focus on quality over quantity, as per the grammar school approach to immigration. This will also move the Education and Business Departments away from constantly calling for more migration while resisting attempts at selectivity and control.
  • We need a greater diversity of higher education provision – in particular, some local universities, such as the 18 provincial universities with London campuses, should reorient towards educating and training the local or regional population, rather than trying to educate the rest of the world. Reducing the number of international students on poor quality courses might entail some pain for the sector – but we should not shy away from this.

If all this negativity is getting you down, then there is a blog from David Willets on Conservative Home to cheer you up.

  • …of those who came on a study visa 2008-2012 only 5 per cent were granted settlement within the subsequent ten years.
  • The current net “migration” figures are heavily influenced by Covid distortions. Not many overseas students came during Covid. After Covid, there was a surge in overseas students as it included some of the backlog that had built up – rising to an exceptional net “migration” by students of 250,000 or more. This net figure is so high because there has not yet been a balancing flow of departures by the students who surged in post-Covid. The ONS estimate that when we return to the usual high levels of so-called “emigration” by students then that “may lead to a negative net migration estimate.” The next Government is very likely to benefit from this reversal of the Covid distortion. It is not a reason for further tightening now.
  • To make these assessments of net migration more real and robust we should institute a proper system of counting people entering and leaving the country. We would know who came and who left the country. Instead, the figures are based on a survey by officials with a clipboard standing at a few airports and ports and asking a few people as they leave what they have been doing here. So if someone comes in to study and after that does a year’s work and gets questioned when they leave and says they’ve been working then the survey does not show that a student has left but a worker has left…
  • … There is a competitive market for overseas students in which English-speaking countries dominate because of the attractions of being taught in the global language so we should match the way our competitors treat overseas students. We could follow the US and distinguish between “immigrants” and “temporary migrants.” Australia treats overseas students as “temporary entrants.” In Canada, overseas students are “non-permanent residents” as distinct from “immigrants.” This is not some linguistic trick – it reflects the reality of what voters worry about….
  • …I accept that overseas students could be used as a potential means of getting controlled skilled migration of the brightest and best by a regime that gave a few of them the right to settle afterward if they achieve exceptional standards. This is roughly the American approach – going to study there has been called “the world’s longest job interview”. But that doesn’t mean we require them all to be the brightest and the best before they even turn up to study. We are selling an education service with some kind of experience of work thrown in to make the proposition more attractive. We then expect overseas students to leave….
  • …The focus on the brightest and the best also leads to Robert Jenrick’s argument that overseas students are fine if they go to the Russell Group but not to “lesser” universities. This is the deep-seated idea that our prestigious research-intensive universities are “good” universities and the rest are “bad.” It is the influence of the Oxbridge who spent 60 years suppressing the creation of other universities and left us with only one model of what a good university looks like. However universities come in different shapes and sizes. A university can deliver world-class teaching or develop world-class links to business without doing world-class research. The University of Teesside focuses on auto-engineering for the nearby Nissan plant. Universities train our nurses and public health officers. Developing countries want to send some of their students to learn these skills…
  • …I support sensible measures to tighten up the overseas student regime. That could include much tougher rules on dependents. There could also be tougher regulation of the agents advising overseas students. Above all we need the Home Office to share with universities the granular information they have on overseas students and their visa status so universities know whether they have left the country.

And HEPI, with Kaplan and the NUS have published a report with data from London Economics that once again emphasises the contribution that graduate route visa holders make to the economy.

  • There were an estimated 66,410 Graduate Route visa holders in the UK in the 2022/23 tax year, split between 56,460 international graduates educated in UK higher education and 9,950 dependants.
  • For every 10 Graduate Route visa holders, there were under two dependants and this ratio will decline significantly in the future due to the recent tightening of the rules on dependants – this took effect in January 2024 and has already seen a decline of around 80 per …..
  • The benefits to the UK in higher tax revenues from hosting these Graduate Route visa holders are estimated to have been £588 million in 2022/23 (or £10,410 per main Graduate Route visa holder). These figures entirely exclude the wider and longer term benefits – for example, Graduate Route visa holders may choose to remain in the UK beyond their current visa through the Skilled Worker route.
  • A comprehensive assessment of the costs to the Exchequer of Graduate Route visa holders in terms of public service provision comes to an estimated £517 million for 2022/23 (or £9,160 per main Graduate Route visa holder).
  • This means the total net benefit to the UK Exchequer of hosting Graduate Route visa holders in the first full year of the scheme (2022/23) is estimated to be £70 million (or £1,240 per international graduate), disproving claims that the UK loses out financially.
  • The financial benefits of the Graduate Route visa are on course to increase materially, as the Home Office estimated 173,000 Graduate Route visas would be granted in 2023/24 and slightly more the following year, meaning over 350,000 Graduate Route visa holders could be in the UK by April 2025. This would increase the direct economic benefits by over five times the level in the first full year of the Graduate Route’s operation. Meanwhile, the costs are set to fall significantly as a result of the new rules on dependants.

Wonkhe has an article on how we got to where we are now and a view on job prospects and how they impact choices, and another piece on what might come next.

The first article points out some interesting historical contextual points:

  • Expansion was supposed to be all about STEM: but in the end most of the growth in international students has been in business and management and social care
  • The big expansion was supposed to take 10 years but it happened almost overnight

HE sector sustainability and change

Fees for foundation years

Finally, after a very long wait, the detail of the new foundation year fee caps has been published.  The document obviously has to define what the new limits apply to, which is in itself interesting.

Provision can be considered a foundation year if it meets all of criteria 1 to 5:

  1. It is an additional year of study (120 credits under the LLE) and is integrated at the start of an undergraduate course in a way which extends the overall length of the course. (A foundation year can be studied full-time, part-time or in an accelerated format, but should always be equivalent to 1-year – (or 120 credits and 1,200 notional learning hours) of full-time study. )
  2. It is integrated with an undergraduate course, such that a student does not typically enrol for the foundation year alone, but for an entire undergraduate course.
  3. It enables students who meet the progression requirements to proceed directly to an integrated undergraduate course.
  4. It is not a standalone course, and does not typically result in a standalone, recognised qualification.
  5. It is designed to equip a student with the skills and knowledge needed to be successful in an integrated undergraduate course. A foundation year may include modules such as study skills, academic research or functional numeracy, alongside modules that are directly related to the content of a student’s chosen undergraduate course.
  6. It may be undertaken at an institution (which may or may not be a registered higher education provider) that is different from the registered HE provider to which the student applied and with which the student has enrolled, through a franchising arrangement.

So, with that cleared up, what is the new limit?

  • Fees for foundation years that start from 1 August 2025 will be capped at either £5,760 or the maximum fee limit for the 2025/26 academic year (currently £9,250).
  • The lower fee cap of £5,760 will apply to classroom-based foundation years from 1 August 2025 (subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary amending legislation). The term “classroom-based” refers to subjects currently in OfS Price Group D (at the time of this publication)
  • Some undergraduate courses are interdisciplinary, including taught content that spans more than one subject area. These courses can be assigned more than one HECoS subject code at the point of registration with the SLC. For these courses, the lower fee cap should be applied to the foundation year if more than 50% of the HECoS subject codes it is registered with are lower-fee subjects (listed in this guidance).

The subjects are listed here.  It’s a long and detailed list by HECoS code.