BU Research Blog | Knowledge Transfer | Bournemouth University

Category / Knowledge Transfer

March 19, 2019

Multichannel electroacoustic music at BU – 27th March 2019

BU research, Events, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement aseddon

We are delighted to announce that David Berezan (University of Manchester) will be joining us for a concert of multichannel electroacoustic in the Allsebrook LT on Wednesday 27th March at 7pm. All are welcome!

David will be playing a programme including some of his own work as well as that of electroacoustic composer Manuella Blackburn (Liverpool Hope University).

Admission is free but please register here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bu-loudspeaker-orchestra-concert-featuring-music-by-david-berezan-and-manuella-blackburn-tickets-59062063221

David Berezan is Professor in Electroacoustic Music Composition at The University of Manchester (UK), where he has acted, since 2003, as Director of the Electroacoustic Music Studios and MANTIS (Manchester Theatre in Sound).

Since 2000 he has primarily composed acousmatic music, though he has also composed and performed solo and ensemble live-electronics works. He is a practitioner and proponent of sound diffusion performance and the interpretation of fixed-media work.

Manuella Blackburn is an electroacoustic music composer who specializes in acousmatic music creation. However, she also has composed for instruments and electronics, laptop ensemble improvisations, and music for dance.

Her music has been performed at concerts, festivals, conferences and gallery exhibitions in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the USA.

March 18, 2019

HE policy update for the w/e 15th March 2019

EU, Funding opportunities, Impact, Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, policy, Public engagement, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

A lively week in Westminster although not much specifically for HE – the Spring Statement had a few good news stories for us, although it’s all provisional because of Brexit, and of course that is the real story of the week. In fact not much has changed, the end result of the votes is as expected i.e. Parliament still didn’t want the deal as it stood, doesn’t want no deal and realises an extension is inevitable. No change there then. And there is some actual HE policy news too…

A big week for the KEF?

It was the closing date for the Research England consultation on the KEF metrics and reporting this week – you can read BU’s response here. Research England reported that they had received more than 150 responses to the consultation.

Spring Statement

Here’s a Treasury summary of the Chancellor’s Spring Statement. You can read more detail here.

In HE specific news, Brexit permitting, the comprehensive spending review will start before the Summer recess and complete in the Autumn, and Augar “will report shortly”. [Chris Skidmore told parliament this week that there had been more than 400 responses to the call for evidence for the Augar review]

PHD level roles will be completely exempt from the visa cap:
“research institutes and innovating businesses will benefit from an exemption for PhD-level occupations from the cap on high-skilled visas from this autumn. Overseas research activity will also count as residence in the UK for the purpose of applying for settlement, meaning researchers will no longer be unfairly penalised for time spent overseas conducting vital fieldwork”
“Apprenticeship Levy – Budget 2018 announced that the co-investment rate will be halved from 10% to 5%, and the amount employers can transfer to their supply chains would increase to 25%. These changes will now take effect from April 2019.”
“International Education Strategy – A strategy, to be launched by the Departments for Education and for International Trade, which will help to strengthen our position at the forefront of global education.”
“International Research and Innovation Strategy – A strategy setting out the government’s ambition to ensure the UK retains its place as a global partner of choice for science and innovation collaboration. As a first step in implementing this, the government has launched an independent review to assess and make recommendations on our future frameworks for international collaboration.”
Science and technology investment:
Today, I am allocating over £200 million in cutting-edge infrastructure to support our world-leading scientists, innovators and industry. These investments, which underpin the government’s ambition to raise economy-wide investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and drive progress against the Grand Challenges, such as healthy ageing and the AI and data revolution, include: Photonics – Allocating £81 million to a national Extreme Photonics Application Centre in Oxfordshire. This centre will help researchers and industry better understand the composition of new materials and how they behave in different conditions.
Bioinformatics – Investing £45 million in a critical upgrade to data storage cloud computing infrastructure at the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridgeshire, to support researchers using big data to drive genetic research. Supercomputers: Archer funding – Allocating £79 million to a new UK supercomputer (ARCHER 2) which will replace the current national high-performance computing platform (ARCHER), providing researchers with a fivefold increase in computing capacity. Joint European Torus (JET) Funding (Fusion) – Setting aside up to £60 million to confirm funding is guaranteed for the facility over 2019/20

Meanwhile, ahead of Augar, 50 per cent of students have reported that they struggle to pay rent, according to the 2019 National Student Accommodation Survey.

This year, 1 in 2 students (50%) say they struggle to pay rent. This is a staggering number – yet the consequences are even more concerning.
Almost two-thirds of you (63%) say the cost of accommodation negatively affects your mental health. More than a third add that money worries affect their studies. Again, these figures are higher than a year ago.
The average student rent is £125/week (£541/month). Hang on to your hats: that’s less than last year.
In a blow for affordability, we’ve found that almost half of the UK has average rents higher than the Maintenance Loan on offer. In other words, once you’ve paid rent, you might not have enough left to pay for food or bills.

The House of Commons library issued a briefing paper – the background in 7 charts

And the Office for Budget Responsibility (the OBR) has issued reports and updates alongside the Statement.

Access and Participation

The OfS have published an A-Z of effective practice for universities and colleges to use alongside the guidance on how to prepare access and participation plans.

And looking in more detail at recently released HESA data, David Kernohan has looked at disability on Wonkhe

We only have data on students that declare their disability to their institution – many choose not to – and we generally (at a top level) get no information on the type or severity of such disability. As legislation puts a duty on providers to make adjustments for students with disabilities before it is notified of these disabilities, it is likely that some types of disability (where significant and specific support is needed) are over-represented in these figures and that others that may be less visible are under-represented.

International Students

MillionPlus have published a report arguing for a new system for student visas, concluding that the current Tier 4 visa application system for international students is overly complex, bureaucratic, and too often arbitrary and subjective in its outcome.

From Dods: Main Criticisms:

The process can be long-winded for the applicant, as well as highly resource intensive for universities and UKVI
The current maximum rate of refusal by Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) is 10%, for all Confirmation of Acceptance of Study (CAS) issued. This system means that universities can have a major source of investment stopped owing to decisions made largely outside of their control, which severely limits institutional willingness to expand provision into potential growth markets. The logical extension of this is that universities act with enormous caution in many parts of the world, or even scale back from overseas operations in those places.
Not all credibility interviews are problematic, but therein lies part of the problem. Either there is a degree of randomness within the system throwing up poor decision making or there is some level of bias embedded within the decision-making process. Neither of these options are a good advert for this system

Therefore, the current system, they argue, is letting too many prospective international students down, and for too many universities it can bring unpredictability and limit their ability to grow in many parts of the world.

Proposals for Reform:

Provisional Visa: A potential student could apply first to UKVI, not the university. UKVI would assess their visa eligibility, based on publicly available assessment criteria as decided by the Home Office. If they are then judged to be a genuine applicant, with the means to undertake a course, they would be issued with a provisional visa (out-of-country). The applicant could then formally apply to a university. The benefits of this proposal would mean the removal of the threat of licence revocation for providers, enable growth to continue in line with government ambitions, whilst maintaining compliance standards

Streamline and Contextualise the Compliance Regime: The Home Office should firstly look to phase out the Tier 4 credibility interview process. Removing the credibility interview would remove a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy and subjectivity. The government should also have a more fundamental re-evaluation of the way it understands and measures compliance and remove some of the arbitrary and counter-productive parts of the current framework.

The 10% maximum refusal rate should also be removed, focusing instead on reasonable and proportionate enforcement designed to combat any real abuse of the system. Under such a system a university would meet at pre-set intervals with UKVI to provide information on compliance and would be assessed on all necessary measures (be they refusal rate, enrolment rate, completion rates etc.) in a more holistic and rounded way.

Conclusion:

To make the most of a post-Brexit world the UK’s Tier 4 visa application process needs to change at this point more than ever. If we can take up the challenges the UK faces and grasp the opportunities for expanding international education, we can achieve our shared aspirations to boost this critical export sector. Universities across the UK, and modern universities in particular, are perfectly placed to expand into new markets, unlock fresh potential and improve the student experience.

Part Time Distance Maintenance Loans – shelved

The intention to offer part time distance maintenance loans has been currently shelved because low numbers make the scheme economically unviable:

Q – Sir John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when his Department plans to make distance-learning maintenance loans available. (LINK)

A – Chris Skidmore:

The Department for Education had forecast that 20,000 part-time maintenance loans would be issued for the 2018-19 academic year. Further information can be found in Table 2.
In January 2019, the Student Loans Company (SLC) published early in-year data on the payments of maintenance loans to part-time students domiciled in England. At the end of December 2019, 2,700 students had been paid a part-time maintenance loan. Further information can be found in Table 7F.
The number of part-time maintenance loans issued was lower than had been forecast at this point in the academic year cycle and the demand for a loan product aimed at part-time distance learners is therefore unlikely to be high enough to make the introduction of such a loan economically viable.
In light of this, I have decided not to extend maintenance loans to distance leaners in academic year 2019/20. The government remains committed to tackling the decline in part-time undergraduate higher education. In particular, the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding is considering how we can encourage learning that is more flexible, including part-time and distance learning. The review will report this year. The SLC will publish guidance relating to part-time maintenance in advance of the application process opening later this year.

Care leavers

From Dods: Under Secretary of State for Children and Families, and Universities Minister Chris Skidmore have issued a joint Written Ministerial Statement, on supporting care leavers in Higher Education. This includes a set of principles for Higher Education providers to consider in their offer to care leavers to help increase the number of students in care accessing higher education and ensure that care leavers in HE are given the support they need to succeed.

Outreach and local authority relationships: Engagement with looked after children should be a key feature of outreach work and should begin at as early an age as possible.
Accommodation support: HE providers should seek to provide priority access and continuous 365 days a year accommodation, preferably subsidised by the institution.
Financial support: HE providers should provide financial support to help with the costs of accommodation, associated study costs and access to social activities to support inclusion and a quality student experience.
Designated member of staff: HE providers should identify at least one designated member of staff to support care leavers.
Offer on website
Support networks: Loneliness and isolation are among the biggest problems reported by care leavers. Encouragement and facilitation of support networks for care leavers within the institution is therefore critical to retention.
Careers Advice.

The Department for Education has issued a press release on the need for culture change at universities. This states that the new Higher Education Principles published today set out how universities – especially the most selective and best-resourced – should do more for young people leaving care by providing them with personal support through buddy systems as well as giving them money for course materials and to fully experience student life.

Children and Families Minister Nadhim Zahawi said: Far too many young people leaving care are missing out on opportunities that their peers take for granted. Many universities are already improving their offers to care leavers, through our Care Leaver Covenant and beyond, but I want this to become the norm – not the exception.
Universities Minister Chris Skidmore said: The access and participation work done by universities must ensure all parts of society have fair access, especially for care leavers. But a place at university is only the start and universities must also focus on supporting young people to make the most out of their course and ultimately secure employment in the future.

Brexit

Well, for any other politics geeks (sorry, policy wonks) out there it has been an exciting week. Whole families have been glued to Parliament TV – and not just mine, apparently. It was real soap opera.

And we’re all learning so much about Parliamentary procedure. It was hugely confusing.

Motions that were difficult to understand in the first place because of cross references and Parliamentary language
Amendments that made no sense on their own, and amendments to amendments.
An amendment that was withdrawn by the person who tabled it, only to be reinstated by a co-signatory (and passed)
And then of course the drama on Wednesday night when MPs amended (against the government) the motion on no deal that was meant to be a free vote for the Conservative Party, at which point the government stopped liking it after all and issued a three line whip against it. Of course this follows the muddle a few weeks ago when the government backed (and whipped members to support) the Brady amendment against its own motion
Amendments that would have allowed space for things that lots of people wanted, but did not vote for, because their party whipped against it or because “it was the wrong time” – e.g. the second referendum.
The government choosing to allow a free vote on some amendments but not others – and then not sacking people who voted or abstained in the face of a three line whip, even senior members of the Cabinet. To be fair, it does seem highly unreasonable to allow no-deal supporting Ministers a free vote, but not the Ministers who want to prevent a no deal exit. And after all the fuss and outrage about Greg Clark and the rest abstaining on Wednesday, 7 leading Brexiteer Ministers defied the whip themselves on Thursday and actually voted against the government. Oh dear.

There was an awful lot of emotion. There were rebels all over the place – only one Minister and one Shadow Minister resigned despite many more ignoring their whips in both parties. Enraged MPs are talking of the complete failure of party discipline. “Incandescent” seems to have been the word of the week, alongside “betrayal” and “chaos”.

The immensely powerful role of the Speaker has been highlighted – he gets to pick which amendments are voted on from the long lists that are submitted, and apparently could even refuse to allow a Meaningful Vote 3 next week because of a 19^th century rule that you can’t ask MPs to vote on the same motion more than once in the same session. But he’ll have to find a way round that. No matter what people think of the deal, if there is a chance of it passing it has to be given – can anyone imagine defending a system that made us leave the EU without a deal because of Parliamentary protocol? If it is voted down, that’s one thing, but refusing to have the vote would surely be bizarre.

If you are reading this on Monday it is quite possible that over the weekend the Attorney General will have changed his legal advice based on an obscure rule that someone has dragged up, that the DUP and the ERG will have found a face-saving way to back down, and the deal will be heading towards approval on 19th or 20^th March. Or else positions will have hardened. Either way, there it seems highly likely now that there will be a delay to Brexit, short or long. But as of Friday, whether we will leave with a deal or not is very much up in the air.

No wonder the Europeans think we’re mad.

So on a more positive not, our Minister, Chris Skidmore has an article in The House, Parliament’s Magazine “This Brexit deal is fantastic for science”.

It is no secret that many in the science and higher education industries had and continue to have concerns over the UK’s exit from the EU. Skidmore, who voted Remain, is optimistic about the future, but does not want Britain to take its eye off the ball.
“From my historical perspective, my concern is that we have this heads down moment looking at Brexit, but those clouds will pass, and we need to be prepared to sell a vision, to be able to implement a vision going forwards. That’s why in this role science is absolutely critical, not just in terms of making sure we put together an effective international strategy, working with our European partners and our international partners and really creating a new vision for where Britain sees its role in the world,” he says.
To crack on with addressing these issues, Skidmore has a solution; back Theresa May’s Brexit deal. “It’s fantastic for science, it’s fantastic for universities, it’s fantastic for collaboration,” he says. “At the same time, we want to then look at where we diverge. It’s those moments of diversion, it’s the opportunity to be able to work outside of structures that we’ve previously been committed to.”
Should the Prime Minister’s deal be ratified, the UK would continue to participate in the EU’s flagship programme for research and innovation, Horizon 2020, and its international mobility programme, Erasmus+. The UK is a net receiver in funding for Horizon 2020, having put in £4bn and received £5.7bn back.
“So, when people talk about the £39bn being some kind of gift to the EU, it’s not,” Skidmore says about the so-called divorce bill. “A significant proportion of that money covers my brief, and I’m keen to demonstrate and communicate the continued value of why we need to do these things.”
But there is uncertainty about the UK’s continued participation in the follow up programmes after 2020. The Government’s mission, Skidmore continues, is to associate to Horizon Europe, the successor to Horizon 2020. Negotiations for associate membership (the UK will no longer be full members after Brexit) will begin later this year.
In a bid to diversify investment streams, Skidmore announces plans to review establishing a new international fund for research. The Government has asked Sir Adrian Smith, the director of the Alan Turing institute, to look at how the fund would work in practice. The consultation would involve national academies, UK Research and Innovation and the science community. Skidmore says the fund could help Britain meet its pledge to spend 2.4% of GDP on research and development by 2027. “We know that our reputation for research and our tertiary education brand is incredibly strong – we need to strengthen it. So, these funds I see supplementing our opportunity to associate with Horizon Europe,” he says. Skidmore is also hopeful of receiving a “good deal for science” at the upcoming spending review.
From his talks with European counterparts, Skidmore believes there is a “genuine degree of warmth” towards the UK’s continuation in the follow up programmes to Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+. “The question will be with a new Horizon Europe programme and new regulations, is there a new form of association. Part of the future political declaration, I’m really keen to explore how can we create the closest possible links,” he answers.
…The Government has sought to reduce uncertainty over no-deal by pledging to underwrite funding for UK participants in Erasmus and Horizon projects until the end of 2020. Skidmore has written to fellow EU ministers outlining the UK’s guarantees. But in a no deal Brexit, firms would not be eligible to receive money from three of the EU’s major funding programmes; the European Research Council, Marie Sklodowska-Curie and SME Instrument Grants, which account for 44% of the total EU science money Britain receives.
“I’m continuing to work with the Treasury to be in contact with them about sort of what mitigating opportunities there will be,” Skidmore says. “I’ve been open and honest about that and partly some of the work we want to take forward with Adrian Smith on the international fund is what is a replacement to the ERC.” No deal would be “very difficult” for the science community, Skidmore concedes. But he has faith in the Government’s preparedness for the scenario – he has spent the morning passing statutory instruments before we meet – and once more champions the PM’s Brexit agreement.
…Beyond funding, concerns in the science and higher education industry centre on access to talent and the continued flow of researchers into the UK. ..Skidmore points to recent UCAS application figures showing a record number (63,690) of students from outside the EU applying to UK institutions this year, an increase of 9%. He also highlights the latest QS World University statistics, with the UK in first place in 13 out of 48 subject rankings, three higher than a year earlier.
“I don’t want there to be a corrosive effect where people start talking down the UK and that makes the international assumptions that somehow there is a problem here. We are investing more money than ever before in science, research and development, more than the last 40 years. An extra £7bn has gone in between 2016 and 2021,” he says.
Turning to the immigration white paper, Skidmore says the Government must “allow for mobility in the science sector”. Is he calling for workers to be given a special status? “Well, it’s whether you have a special status or whether you look at the salary cap,” he says, referring to the proposed £30,000 immigrant salary threshold. “If there is anything to be taken away from this, it’s to make sure that we keep the UK in a place where we are competing against China, Canada and Australia for student places.”

In the meantime, no deal preparations are continuing. On Wednesday by 3pm I had received 51 Brexit e-mails from the government….

The government has set out its approach to avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland if the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 29 March.

Today we are confirming a strictly unilateral, temporary approach to checks, processes and tariffs in Northern Ireland. …The UK government would not introduce any new checks or controls on goods at the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, including no customs requirements for nearly all goods.
The UK temporary import tariff announced today would therefore not apply to goods crossing from Ireland into Northern Ireland. We would only apply a small number of measures strictly necessary to comply with international legal obligations, protect the biosecurity of the island of Ireland, or to avoid the highest risks to Northern Ireland businesses – but these measures would not require checks at the border.

In preparation for the no-deal scenario, the government have announced their plans for tariffs that would apply. The government has announced that most imports into the UK would not attract a tariff in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The BBC cover the story (Industry bodies and businesses are still poring over the 1,477-page document which outlines the new plan)

Under a temporary scheme 87% of imports by value would be eligible for zero-tariff access. At the moment 80% of imports are tariff free.
Tariffs would be maintained to protect some industries, including agriculture. Beef, lamb, poultry and some dairy products would receive protection.
A tariff is a tax applied to goods that are traded on international markets. In the great majority of cases, tariffs are applied to imported goods by the country importing them. But there can also be tariffs on exported goods.
…The new tariff regime would mark a shift in favour of products from non-EU countries. It would mean 82% of imports from the EU would be tariff-free, down from 100% now.
92% percent of imports from the rest of the world would pay no border duty, up from 56%.
…Imports of cars from the EU will have a tariff of 10% applied, which would add £1,500 to a typical family car.
…The National Farmers’ Union President, Minette Batters, said that eggs, cereals, fruit and vegetables would not receive any protection under the plans. The plans would see the current tariff rate on oranges cut from 16% to 0%, the rate for onions down from 9.6% to 0% and the tariff on imported televisions down from 14% to 0%.

The British Chamber of Commerce said:

“If the tariffs announced today were to come into effect, there would be winners and losers across UK industry overnight. The abruptness of changes to tariff rates in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU would be an unwelcome shock to many of the businesses affected.
“If the government were to bring these tariffs into effect on March 30, the move would also have the potential to cede negotiating leverage in future trade talks.
“While ministers have clearly listened to our arguments and maintained targeted protection in some areas, overall there has not been enough consultation, preparation or planning to support the firms and communities that could find themselves at the end of a sudden shift in tariffs. As MPs vote tonight, this is yet another reason why they must act to avoid a messy and disorderly exit from the EU on March 29.”

Other news

T levels: text This House of Commons Library briefing paper is a great catch up on the T levels basics. The executive summary follows (or to read in full click this link then scroll to the bottom of the page for the PDF download link). Under the reforms, a new technical education option will be created to sit alongside the academic option (e.g. A Levels and a degree). The technical option will comprise 15 routes based around occupations with shared training requirements. Some routes will be further sub-divided, with closely-related occupations grouped together into pathways.

The technical option will be delivered by a combination of college-based education and apprenticeships, with four of the 15 routes delivered primarily through apprenticeships.

New level 3 study programmes – T Levels – will be created to sit at the start of technical routes (apart from the four apprenticeship only routes), with a T Level for each pathway (i.e. some routes will have more than one T Level). They will be primarily aimed at 16 year olds. The Government intends to develop a ‘transition year’ for those students who are not ready to start a T Level at age 16, but who could achieve one by age 19.

T Levels will be equivalent to a 3 A Level programmes and will, on average, consist of 1800 hours studied full-time over two years – around 50% more than the average 16-19 study programme at present. They will all follow the same broad framework and will consist of five components:

A technical qualification
An industry placement with an employer of between 45 and 60 days
Maths, English and digital requirements
Any other occupation-specific requirements/qualifications (e.g. a license to practise).
Any further employability, enrichment and pastoral provision.

Three T Levels within the construction, digital, and education and childcare routes will be delivered at small number of providers from September 2020. A further seven T Levels will be available from September 2021, with the reminder rolled out from September 2022 onwards. The Government’s current aim is for all T Levels to be introduced by September 2023.

T Levels will not be available in all subjects where level 3 qualifications exist. The Government has stated that it will carry out a review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below (excluding A Levels and GCSEs), with the aim of simplifying the current qualification landscape.

It is intended that the technical option will extend from T Levels up to higher skill levels, and the Government is currently conducting a review looking at how technical qualifications at level four and five can better meet the needs of learners.

Professor Julia Buckingham CBE elected next President of Universities UK. Professor Julia Buckingham CBE, Vice-Chancellor and President of Brunel University London, has today been elected as the next President of Universities UK following a ballot of Universities UK’s members. She will succeed the current President, Professor Dame Janet Beer DBE, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Liverpool, from 1 August 2019 and will hold the post for two years. Please find more information here.

Defence recruit STEM grads: STEM graduates are targeted in a new Ministry of Defence initiative. Mark Lancaster, Defence Minister, issued a written statement outlining the new recruitment campaign. He stated:

In an increasingly complex and technologically driven world, the need for talented individuals with a wide variety of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) skills has never been greater. They will be central to developing, maintaining and exploiting our current and future military capabilities, to help Defence stay at the leading edge of technological change. Through their contribution to innovation and experimentation, to harness new technologies, we will be better prepared to meet the challenges and threats of today and tomorrow.
Defence has been reviewing its STEM graduate requirement and will put in place a new, targeted scheme to recruit undergraduates in related subjects; the STEM Graduate Inflow Scheme (SGIS). This scheme has been designed to significantly increase the number of STEM graduates brought into Defence and the variety of STEM disciplines they are from. It will be open to undergraduates across all UK Universities and be supported by a competitive financial package. The new scheme will also be more flexible and enable Defence to adapt quickly to future changes in requirement.
The new scheme will replace the current Defence Technical Officer and Engineer Entry Scheme…Defence needs to increase numbers well beyond the current scheme’s ability to deliver, and it needs to be more responsive and agile to succeed in an increasingly competitive market for STEM graduates in the UK and globally.

Transition from the current arrangements to the new STEM Graduate Inflow Scheme will take place incrementally over a 5-year period.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

January 30, 2019

The MSc Hotel and Food Services Management visits the Institute Paul Bocuse in France

BU research, Business Engagement, EU, Global engagement, Industry collaboration, Info Days, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, PG research, Research news, Research Training, Student Engagement, student research, Training Natalia Lavrushkina

The MSc Hotel and Food Services Management has as its focus the rapidly developing international hospitality sector which is both a dynamic and expanding part of many economies. As part of the programme we visited the Institute Paul Bocuse in France to experience the research culture and their approach to food research. We learnt how they

1. train future professionals, to be competent and open to the world of tomorrow, for industry, and academia.
2. lead scientific projects in response to current and future societal challenges.
3. innovate, create new methods, new products, and new services.

We had an excellent visit as reflected in these testimonials;

The visit to the Institut Paul Bocuse allowed me to shape my dissertation topic further. To meet academics working at the cutting edge of food research was inspiring and a very useful opportunity to discuss what my own research might look like. Food for thought!

It is difficult to express my feelings in a few sentences about 3-day-trip in Lyon. It was an interesting and memorable experience to explore the city’s gastronomic heritage and local cuisine as well as gain more knowledge on food services management from PhD students in Paul Bocuse Institute.

January 24, 2019

Innovation, Commercialisation and Networking : Turn ideas into commercial success – an Innovate UK event – BOOK NOW!!

BU Challenges, BU research, Events, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Transfer Partnership Pengpeng

ICAN: Innovate UK in the South West

Innovation, Commercialisation And Networking: Turn ideas into commercial success. Get support, get inspiration, get funded – hear from Innovate UK, Dorset LEP and invited guests.

Innovation, Commercialisation And Networking (ICAN) is an event which aims to provide inspirational and informing content for any sized business or individuals with great ideas who want to stay ahead of the game.

It is a crucial time for businesses within the UK and innovation is key to maintaining a competitive advantage. New ideas are vital for businesses but this event looks at turning these ideas into reality, how to get innovation projects funded, who to turn to for support and guidance and crucially, how to turn these ideas into commercial success.

You’ll hear from businesses who have been there and done it, put your questions to an expert innovation panel and participate in workshops tailored to specific innovation topics. In addition to all of this, the event will provide a great networking opportunity to meet like-minded businesses and professional support services.

We look forward to seeing you at Bournemouth University on the 30th January 2019.

Places are limited so follow this link to book now!

Agenda to follow.

#ICANINNOVATE

January 21, 2019

Reflections on doing interdisciplinary research

Centre for Excellence in Learning, Featured academics, humanities, international, Knowledge Transfer, open access, Public engagement, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research Integritiy, Research news, Uncategorized, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Conducting interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary research has become more to the fore in many academic fields. As a result of the steady rise of multidisciplinary research It has been made more explicit in REF 2021 [1]. For example, REF 2021 UoA 2 Public Health, Health Services & Primary Care “recognises the breadth and diverse range of single, multidisciplinary and/or multi-professional research across public health, health services and primary care”, whilst UoA22 Anthropology & Development Studies states that its submissions “can be multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary and may combine social science with other disciplines”.

However, doing multidisciplinary research is not without its problems (and barriers). In a paper accepted today we reflect on some of these issues [2]. The co-authors are Bournemouth University’s Dr. Pramod Regmi, Dr. Nirmal Ayral and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, and BU Visiting Professor Padam Simkhada (Public Health Institute, Liverpool John Moores University) and BU graduate Dr. Pratik Adhikary (Green Tara Nepal). We all are Public Health researchers, with very different educational backgrounds and training, reflecting the diversity of and interdisciplinarity in the field. Several of us have a first degree in Education or Health Education, but one has a first degree in Sociology. Whilst four of the five authors have Master degree in Public Health and/or Health Promotion, two have a Master in Education. Most of us have a Ph.D. in Public Health, but again one of us has a Ph.D. in Sociology. Our paper ‘Interdisciplinary Research in Public Health: Not quite straightforward’ has been accepted by the journal Health Prospect [2]. The advantage of this journal, which is part of the NepJOL family is that it is Open Access and hence freely available for anybody working in Public Health across the globe.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

Reference:

REF 2021 (2018) Consultation on the draft panel criteria and working methods https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1013/consultation-on-the-draft-panel-criteria-and-working-methods-ref-2018_02.pdf
van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P.R., Adhikary, P., Aryal, N., Simkhada, P. (2019) Interdisciplinary Research in Public Health: Not quite straightforward, Health Prospect (forthcoming)

January 14, 2019

HE Policy update for the w/e 11th January 2019

EU, Impact, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, policy jforster

Value for money (1) – cutting low value university courses

A report by Onward published on 7^th January sets out some ideas for addressing the concerns about high student loans: A question of degree – Why we should cut graduates’ taxes and pay for it by reducing the number of low value university courses. Not much surprise about what they recommend then….

Who are they?

“Onward is a powerful ideas factory for centre-right thinkers and leaders. We exist to make Britain fairer, more prosperous and more united, by generating a new wave of modernising ideas and a fresh kind of politics that reaches out to new groups of people. We believe in a mainstream conservatism – one that recognises the value of markets and supports the good that government can do, is unapologetic about standing up to vested interests, and assiduous in supporting the hardworking, aspirational and those left behind. Our goal is to address the needs of the whole country: young as well as old; urban as well as rural; and for all parts of the UK – particularly places that feel neglected or ignored in Westminster.”

Its foreword is by two MPs: Neil O’Brien OBE MP and Gillian Keegan MP:

…at present we have a dramatically lop-sided system. University education dominates at the top of every profession, and every institution. In contrast, technical education and apprenticeships have been the poor relation for decades, neglected and underfunded. Until recently, these courses have not even provided any route to high level qualifications or top jobs. In recent years that has started to change, with the creation of higher level technical education, degree apprenticeships and the forthcoming Institutes of Technology. But still there’s a long way to go. And a lot to change. Thanks to new government data we now know that there are many people for whom it is not worth incurring over £50,000 of debt to obtain a university degree – either for them, or for the government. This paper concludes it is between a fifth and a quarter of university students. We now know specifically which courses, at which institutions, see their graduates earning too little for their degree to have been worth it financially. That’s not the only way in which the facts have changed in recent years either. New data on the dramatic imbalances of wealth between generations makes it clear that we need to take urgent action to help younger generations enjoy the same opportunities their parents had. ….

The challenges:

Graduates face some of the highest marginal tax rates of any taxpayers in England and Wales, compounding imbalances of wealth between the generations
In economic terms, university represents extremely poor value for money for some graduates, especially those studying certain subjects:
- Earnings varies considerably by subject…. Graduates studying medicine, law, economics and the hard sciences (“STEM subjects”) enjoy high returns.
- Lower earning courses included degrees in creative arts, psychology, agriculture, combined studies, mass communications, English and social studies (excluding economics).
- The lowest earning subjects of all were creative arts courses, which had the largest number of graduates of any course type despite the lowest earnings. Ten years after graduating, the median creative arts graduate does not earn above the £25,000 repayment threshold and is not paying anything back.
- There is little evidence that market forces are driving students towards courses with high returns.
Low returns and high interest rates combine to ensure most loans are never fully paid back
Despite being neglected, technical education is already a better route to higher earnings for many students. If we invested more in higher technical education, it could be even better
Those with the lowest prior attainment are the most likely to be financial losers under the current system
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the public do not believe the current system of student loans is fair or represents value for money
Simply abolishing tuition fees does nothing for graduates, and is prohibitively expensive for taxpayers, including many who have not themselves attended university
Reducing tuition fees from their current level would do little to reduce the day-to-day repayment burden of graduates
Replacing loans with a graduate tax is simpler but is unlikely to lead to lower graduate repayments and would worsen ‘brain drain’
Shifting the costs to employers would do little for graduates, and create significant distortions
Altering rates and thresholds might have the desired effects, but compound other issues with loan forgiveness and accounting

The recommendations:

Value for money (2) – no secrets revealed yet

The Education Committee published its report, Value for Money in Higher Education, on 5 November 2018. The government response to the Committee’s report was published on 3^rd January 2019

Interestingly it starts by setting the tone for what is to follow:

This document sets out the government’s response to the Committee’s report and clarifies the responsibilities of the Office for Students (OfS) and the Institute of Apprenticeships in respect of the issues raised. It also reflects that the government is continuing to develop policy in these areas alongside the Review of Post 18 Education and Funding, which will conclude in 2019.

That about sums it up. We’ve set out the responses below in summary with some comments.

Value for money for students and the taxpayer

Recommendation: Every higher education institution should publish a breakdown of how tuition fees are spent on their websites. This should take place by the end of 2018, and we recommend that the Office for Students intervene if this deadline is not met.

Response: [this is for the OFS to deal with]

Recommendation: Unjustifiably high pay for senior management in higher education has become the norm rather than the exception and does not represent value for money for students or the taxpayer.

Response: Universities receive significant amounts of public funding, so it is only right that their senior staff pay arrangements command public confidence and deliver good value for both students and taxpayers. We want to see senior staff pay in universities that is fair and justifiable.

[ie, this is for the OFS to deal with]

Recommendation: The current system of self-regulation for senior management pay is totally unacceptable. We call for the Office for Students to publish strict criteria for universities on acceptable levels of pay that could be linked to average staff pay, performance and other measures that the Office for Students sees fit. The Office for Students should take swift action if this is not the case.

Response: In addition to the requirement for providers to publish justifications for their pay levels as outlined above, the OfS requires providers to publish the pay multiple of the head of the provider’s remuneration compared with that of all other employees. Universities are autonomous institutions and they are solely responsible for setting the pay of their staff, including senior managers. The government is not seeking to set pay levels within providers. These measures are designed to improve the transparency of pay levels for senior staff within HE providers.

Recommendation: Institutions must routinely publish the total remuneration packages of their Vice-Chancellors in a visible place on their website. Vice-Chancellors must never sit on their remuneration boards and this should be enforced by the Office for Students.

Response: The OfS requires universities to publish full details of the total remuneration package of their vice-chancellors, including bonuses, pension contributions and other taxable benefits. Similar requirements will be extended to cover all staff with a basic salary of over £150,000 per annum once the regulatory framework is in full force. The Committee of University Chairs (CUC) published its HE Senior Staff Remuneration Code in June 2018. This says that a provider’s remuneration committee must be independent and competent, and that the head of the institution must not be a member of this committee. The OfS accounts direction already states that registered providers must have regard to this code.

The quality of higher education

Recommendation: The TEF is still in its infancy and requires further improvement and embedding to become the broad measure of quality that we want it to be. We look forward to the independent review of TEF and recommend that it focuses on how the exercise is used by students to inform and improve choice. The review must include an assessment of how TEF is used in post-16 careers advice. For the TEF to improve value for money for students it must play a more significant role in the decision-making process of applicants.

Response: [it’s up to the OfS, but we have left some of the response here for you to read]

The OfS is planning targeted communications to improve awareness of TEF and will be undertaking specific research with applicants and students to understand how TEF ratings should be presented to ensure that they are meaningful to prospective students.

In June 2018, we published the findings of a report by IFF Research Ltd entitled ‘TEF and Informing Student Choice’. Although we recognise that only 15% of prospective students in that survey had used or intended to use TEF to inform their choice, the OfS had only published the first set of TEF outcomes in June 2017. For future cohorts it is worth noting that 68% of those surveyed considered that information on subject-level TEF would be useful.

Dame Shirley Pearce has been appointed as the independent reviewer of TEF in accordance with Section 26 of HERA. We will bring the concerns of the Committee to her attention, but as this is an independent review, with the reviewer’s obligations set out in statute, the department has no power to insist that her review addresses or excludes any particular issue.

Recommendation: Institutions should move away from a linear approach to degrees, and enable more part-time, mature and disadvantaged students to study in higher education. We recommend that the Government’s current post-18 review develop a funding model which allows a range of flexible options including credit transfer and ‘hopping on and off’ learning.

Response: [it’s all about the post-18 review and the OfS]

..Supporting arrangements for students who wish to switch provider or degree is already an important part of the reforms enacted by HERA. Section 38 of the act places a duty on the OfS to monitor the provision of student transfer arrangements by registered HE providers and the use of such arrangements by students, and a summary power to facilitate, encourage and promote awareness of these arrangements. Section 38 will come into force on 1 August 2019. In the meantime, the strategic guidance issued in February 2018 by the department asked the OfS to continue to collect data on student transfers ….

…Studying part-time and later in life can of course bring considerable benefits for individuals, employers and the wider economy. The OfS targets an element of the Teaching Grant to recognise the additional costs of part-time study. In 2017/18, £72 million was made available, and the same amount was allocated in 2018/19 for this purpose. Furthermore, within the strategic guidance, we have also asked the OfS and the Director for Fair Access and Participation to encourage providers to consider the different barriers that mature learners can face in their Access and Participation Plans. This covers access to, success in, as well as progression from HE.

….We launched a review of Level 4-5 technical education in October 2017, which is working closely with the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding, to ensure a coherent vision for FE and HE. The review of level 4 and 5 education will examine how classroom-based level 4 and 5 education, particularly technical education, meets the needs of learners and employers. On the 6th December, the Secretary of State for Education set out his vision for why we need high quality technical education, and said – among other things -that we intend to establish a system of employer-led national standards for higher technical education. These will be based on existing apprenticeship standards and will provide progression opportunities for those completing T Levels from 2022.

Recommendation: More flexible approaches to higher education should be supplemented by the option for undergraduates of studying for two-year accelerated degrees alongside the traditional three-year model. The post-18 review should investigate potential funding models to clarify the benefits and costs of accelerated degrees, taking into account fees, living costs and post-study earnings.

Response: [we’ve already done this] …on 29 November 2018 government laid regulations to enable higher annual accelerated degree fee caps to be charged by providers. This change will enable potential course revenue of up to 80% of the standard equivalent, while still offering accelerated students a significant saving of 20% on the standard total fee costs. …

Recommendation: The introduction of two-year degrees must not create a two-tier system where students from disadvantaged backgrounds are encouraged to take them on the basis of cost. The Government’s review of higher education should include an impact assessment of how accelerated degrees will affect disadvantaged students.

Response: We acknowledge the Committee’s concern, which was also expressed by a number of respondents to the accelerated degrees consultation in 2018, where we asked specifically about access arrangements. Nevertheless, 74% of respondents still wanted accelerated degree fees to be treated the same as other higher course fees for the purpose of access.

We are not aware of any empirical evidence to suggest either that accelerated degrees are a qualitatively inferior form of degree study compared to their standard equivalents, or that the fees saving of an accelerated degree is seen as their most significant benefit by students. As noted above, the SLC Customer Insight surveys conducted in August 2018 indicated that both accelerated and standard students regarded the time saved on an accelerated course and the advantage of starting work one year faster than their peers, was the most significant benefit.

We know that the specific characteristics and challenges of accelerated study will not be right for all students. We will assess the effectiveness of accelerated degree funding and expenditure on access measures (compared to their standard equivalents), in the review to be undertaken three years after implementation of the higher accelerated degree fee caps regulations.

Skills

Recommendation: We are extremely disappointed by the response from the Institute for Apprenticeships to widespread concerns from the higher education sector on the future of degree apprenticeships. We urge the Institute to make the growth of degree apprenticeships a strategic priority. Degree qualifications must be retained in apprenticeship standards, and the Institute must remove the bureaucratic hurdles which universities are facing. The Institute and the Education and Skills Funding Agency must engage much more actively with the higher education sector and take better account of their expertise.

Response: …The department is already working with the HE sector and will continue to do so, including meeting quarterly with a cross section of HE representative bodies to discuss apprenticeship policy issues. …In the last 3 months, 10 HE providers have undertaken user research and we will continue to involve these institutions in our ongoing research.

Recommendation: Degree apprenticeships are crucial to boosting the productivity of this country, providing another legitimate route to higher education qualifications and bringing more students from disadvantaged backgrounds into higher education. We believe some of the money which is currently allocated by the Office for Students for widening access could be better spent on the development and promotion of degree apprenticeships and support for degree apprentices to climb the ladder of opportunity. All higher education institutions should offer degree apprenticeships, and we encourage students from all backgrounds to undertake them. We recommend that the Office for Students demonstrates its support for them by allocating a significant portion of its widening access funding to the expansion of degree apprenticeships specifically for disadvantaged students.

Response:…DfE have already provided the OfS with funding to support the expansion of degree apprenticeships and to widen participation through the Degree Apprenticeships Development Fund (DADF)

In March 2016 DfE launched a £10 million DADF to support the development and take up of degree apprenticeships over two years. In 2016-18, 18 projects were supported, involving over 45 universities and colleges. In 2017/18 funding was allocated to 26 projects…..

The government is looking forward to the forthcoming evaluation report of the Fund, which will help us and the OfS to consider how to focus spending on what has the greatest impact for students.

More widely, the National Apprenticeships Service has launched a number of projects to increase participation amongst underrepresented groups and to ensure apprenticeships are accessible to individuals from all backgrounds. This includes the ‘5 cities’ project, a partnership with five major cities to improve black, Asian and minority ethnic representation, and ‘Opportunities Through Apprenticeships’, a pilot project working with four local authorities to raise the value of apprenticeships in disadvantaged areas. The ‘Opportunities Through Apprenticeships’ project was launched in November 2018. It aims to support social mobility by creating opportunities for more apprentices from disadvantaged areas to undertake high value apprenticeship with higher earnings potential and progression.

…The HE sector is supportive of Level 6 plus and degree apprenticeships and is involved in their development – with at least 60 providers offering or intending to offer degree apprenticeships during the 2017/18 academic year from a pool of over 100 on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

The OfS will want to consider the Committee’s recommendations regarding the allocation of its widening access funding.

Recommendation: The implementation of T-Level qualifications from 2020 could offer improved access to university for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Government should engage with universities and UCAS in order to determine an appropriate tariff weighting prior to the introduction of T-levels. We also encourage universities to continue to accept BTECs and put in place additional academic and pastoral support to these students throughout their studies.

Response: The department expects T Levels to provide all students, regardless of their background, with a high quality technical offer that is valued as highly as A levels. With content designed by employers, T Levels will prepare students for skilled employment or progression to higher technical study. As we prepare for the first teaching of T Levels, we are working closely with a wide range of partners, stakeholders, schools and colleges to ensure successful delivery.

…Individual HE providers are responsible for determining the qualifications that they will accept for the purposes of entry to higher education. Whilst recognising the institutional autonomy of HE providers and, in particular, their freedom to determine the criteria for the admission of students, we would encourage them to consider the content of the qualifications they require before making offers. DfE committed in May 2018 to carry out a review of qualifications at level 3 and below (excluding A Levels, T Levels and GCSEs), so that all funded qualifications have a distinct purpose, are high quality and support progression to good outcomes…..

Recommendation: We recommend that universities look to include significant periods of work experience within undergraduate degree courses. This could be a year in industry, or shorter placements with local employers. We believe that practical experience of the workplace must become the norm in degrees and an integral part of making students ‘work ready’. There should also be a greater focus on the extent to which universities prepare their students for work in the TEF criteria.

Response: The numbers of undergraduates who undertake work experience within their degree courses are growing and we would like to see more universities and employers offering students these opportunities.

….We are working to support and encourage high quality new and innovative provision that has a strong offer for students, helping providers to navigate the regulatory system and we will continue to work with new providers to tackle any barriers that might arise.

There is a strong track record of collaboration and joint working between universities and businesses. For example, more than two-thirds of businesses have developed links with universities and more than a third are looking to grow their ties in the future. For example, Aston University has strong links to employers, and more than 70% of students undertake a year in industry as part of their degrees. Teesside University’s Digital City innovation initiative is helping local SMEs place graduate interns in their businesses by providing recruitment support and a 50% contribution towards their salary.

A traditional university course is not the only route to a successful career. Level 6 plus and degree apprenticeships allow universities to build partnerships with industry and professional bodies, working together to create a skilled workforce.

The Graduate Talent Pool is a government initiative designed to help new and recent graduates gain real work experience. This allows employers to advertise paid internships to new and recent graduates, free of charge. As of end of September 2018, 12,464 employers and 135,469 graduates had registered to use the service since the scheme’s launch…..

Social justice

Recommendation: Higher education institutions spend a vast amount of public money on access and participation. The results of this expenditure are not always clear to see. There must be transparency on what they are investing in, a greater focus on outcomes for students and a rigorous evaluation process. In response to the Director of Fair Access’s new proposals we expect to see institutions focusing their efforts on value for money for the most disadvantaged students and facing penalties if sufficient progress is not made.

Response: [this is for the OfS to deal with]

Recommendation: We recommend a move away from the simple use of entry tariffs as a league table measure towards contextual admissions, foundation courses and other routes to entry.

Response: The criteria for determining a HE provider’s position in a league table is a matter for its compilers. The government would not want the use of entry tariffs as a criterion to undermine the efforts of providers to take greater numbers of disadvantaged students.

Recommendation: The Office for Students must clamp down on the rise in unconditional offers. Their steep increase is detrimental to the interests of students and undermines the higher education system as a whole.

Response: The department agree with the committee and we are disturbed by the recent large increases in the number of unconditional offers received by students and the potential impact these offers can have. In this respect we welcome the recent announcement by St Mary’s University Twickenham that they will stop using unconditional offers, in the light of evidence that some students who had enrolled with them after an unconditional offer was made did not get the A level grades they expected.

[this is for the OFS to deal with]

Recommendation: The gap in entry rates between the most and least disadvantaged students remains too wide when it should be closing fast. We support the use of contextualised admissions to bring more students from lower socio-economic backgrounds into higher education. We recognise that this practice should not be used in isolation, and that more effective outreach should be followed by support for disadvantaged students throughout their degree. Institutions should state their contextualisation policies in their application information. By doing so disadvantaged students and schools in areas with lower rates of participation in higher education will have a better understanding of the entry requirements to different institutions.

Response: The department agrees that while good progress has been made in widening participation by under-represented and disadvantaged groups in HE, there is still more to be done. Control over admissions lies with institutions and this autonomy is protected under HERA.

Nevertheless, contextual admissions can play a role if they recognise the case for taking into account wider contextual factors in a student’s level of prior attainment: these type of admissions justify providers making offers of places to those they anticipate have strong potential to succeed in HE. It is important too that providers are transparent in their use of contextual information in offer and admission decisions, publish the rationale for any use of contextual offers, and make clear to applicants the circumstances in which they would make such offers. A clear policy on the use of contextual admissions should work in conjunction with effective outreach work, which is properly monitored and evaluated.

Recommendation: We are deeply concerned by the fall in both part-time and mature learners, and the impact this has had on those from lower socio-economic groups going into higher education. We recognise that although the number of disadvantaged school leavers going into higher education has increased, the total number of English undergraduate entrants from low participation areas decreased by 15% between 2011/12 and 2015/16.

Response: [it’s for the post-18 review]

Recommendation: The recent decline in part-time and mature learners should be a major focus of the Government’s post-18 education and funding review. We support calls for the review to redesign the funding system for these learners. The review should develop a tailored approach which moves away from the one size fits all approach which has driven the dramatic decline in numbers since 2012.

Response: [see above on flexible provision]

Recommendation: Based on the overwhelming evidence we have heard during the inquiry, we recommend that the Government return to the pre-2016 system and reinstate the means-tested system of loans and maintenance grants.

Response: [it’s for the post-18 review]

Graduate employability

Recommendation: We are encouraged by the increase in graduate outcomes information and believe this can both support more informed choices for students and make institutions more accountable for the destinations of their graduates. However, there is still a long way to go before students have access to robust data on graduate employment which will inform their choices.

Response: [it’s all about LEO]

Recommendation: Better information on graduate outcomes must lead to a greater focus in higher education on outputs and outcomes. Higher education institutions must be more transparent about the labour market returns of their courses. This is not simply a measure of graduate earnings but of appropriate professional graduate-level and skilled employment destinations. We recommend that the Office for Students instructs all providers to be transparent about levels of graduate employment and secure this through funding agreements.

Response: New sources of information such as the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s (HESA) Graduate Outcomes survey, replacing the Destination of Leavers from HE, have an important role in improving information for students. ..

[plus TEF]

The OfS and its partners are developing options for a new resource to replace Unistats in 2019. This will ensure that data is presented in a way which supports students to understand and use the data in a meaningful and robust way

Recommendation: The reforms introduced by successive governments to higher education have caused a growing tension between the perceived value of study to a student, the funding and the wider economic value of higher education. This has been caused in part by the way that the system has changed incrementally and is widely misunderstood. The current system of tuition fees and repayments is more akin to a graduate tax. Promoting better public understanding of this should form part of the HE funding review.

Response: [it’s all about the post-18 review and the OfS]

Recommendation: Students lack sufficient high-quality information to make informed choices about higher education and the career paths which might subsequently be open to them. Decisions to take on a financial burden lasting most of a working lifetime are often made by students without adequate information or advice. The long-term implications of an adverse choice can leave students in a vulnerable position. Student choice is central to the debate over value for money in higher education. Our inquiry found a woeful lack of pre-application and career information, advice and guidance, particularly awareness of degree apprenticeships. The Government’s current post-18 review must look at routes into higher education, and the quality of careers advice which students receive.

Response: DfE’s Careers Strategy, published in December 2017, sets out a long-term plan to make sure that all young people have the information, advice and guidance they need to make informed choices about their education, training and employment options….

[It’s all about the OfS and the post-18 review]

Value for money (3) – the OfS position

The Office for Students issued their own response on 10^th January. They promise:

Work on transparency on value for money and calling for the sector to define best practice
More transparency on remuneration
Removing barriers to accelerated degrees
Supporting apprenticeships through the Access and Participation guidance [what will that look like?]
Gather and share evidence on work experience
Force the sector to improve assessment and evaluation of access and participation efforts and continue with fining and licence conditions
Raise concerns with league table compilers
Announce action on unconditional offers by Spring 2019
Challenge providers on mature students through access and participation guidance
Replacing unistats

TEF

The OfS have released the data for all institutions including those not actively participating in the new round of TEF. The data sits alongside a refreshed set of criteria and judgements, with specific definitions of the Gold, Silver, Bronze standards. The provider narrative looks to remain influential in the refreshed model and the significant emphasis on the data metrics continues (it is the initial determinant of award level). Wonkhe have crunched the data to make initial institutional judgements which are an interesting read (here). When contemplating Wonkhe’s article remember the metrics comprise only part of the final award judgement.

Wonkhe’s analysis results in less institutions receiving gold overall, with none of the Russell Group institutions reaching the top slot. The below chart shows the movement by displaying institutions with current Gold, Silver, Bronze, provisional, or no current award (-) as the colour of their Wonkhe calculated new award (based only on their metrics). The interactive tableau chart is here.

But it’s all a bit theoretical as it is expected few institutions will enter year 4, as most don’t need to again until 2021 – and by them it may all have changed after the Parliamentary Review and the subject level TEf pilot….

Brexit update

The House of Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee met to discuss the impact of the Horizon and Erasmus programmes and their future in a post Brexit Britain. Chris Skidmore, the Universities Minister, gave evidence. You can read the summary here.

Otherwise chaos continues – nothing has changed except that no deal looks a lot more likely…at least for this week.

KEF

Research England have launched their consultation on the Knowledge Exchange Framework. We’ll be working with colleagues across BU to prepare our response. They are also running a pilot.

We wrote about the build up to this in our policy update on 23^rd November 2018 The proposal is for a set of metrics plus a narrative that gives the local context including strategic goals, context and local growth and regeneration, and public and community engagement.

Read more on Wonkhe:

Wonkhe’s Louis Coiffait breaks down the KEF consultation.
Richard Jones, Chair of the KEF Technical Panel and Professor of Physics at the University of Sheffield, hails the introduction of the KEF and its ability to recognise the economic contribution of universities.
Tamsin Mann, Head of Policy at Praxis Auril sets out a KEF wishlist for university staff working on knowledge exchange.

Widening Participation and Achievement

A lack of aspiration is not the problem is a new thought provoking blog in Wonkhe which shuns the traditional view that disadvantaged young people attend university less because they lack aspiration and knowledge about the HE sector. It views poor educational achievement at school, brought about by the young person’s accumulation of multiple disadvantages through their childhood, as the crux of the problem. It highlights a study which recognises that these disadvantaged children are rarely exposed to the economic benefits that educational success brings. It suggests drawing on the psychological concept of ‘possible selves’ (considering what/how they want to be in the future to align thinking and motivation and kick start the attainment process needed to get there) as an alternative to aspiration raising in the future. (WP buffs will also want to check out this research on the topic.) Possible selves is a nice alternative to the deficit model approach to WP but it in isolation it seems unlikely to work. Broad and robust careers support would likely be needed to open the eyes of disadvantaged young people to the myriad of future employment possibilities they may not have been exposed to through their home and social environment. Yet careers support remains a long standing thorny problem that no Government has been able to resolve – it is costly, patchy, and cannot meet all needs. Ironically for a blog which favours Bourdieu’s thinking it is this concept of lack of social capital and networks which means possible selves cannot be a neat solution all by itself.

Attracting Mature Students – the barriers

Coincidentally the ONS (Office for National Statistics) have analysed DfE survey data and report that the least qualified adults and vulnerable members of society have the least access to training to boost their employment opportunities and life chances. Lack of confidence was a factor in not accessing opportunities and there was an interesting finding that those without qualifications tended to focus on education or training as a way of improving their wellbeing, whereas those at the other end of the educational spectrum, with degrees or equivalent, seemed more driven by improving their job prospects.
The biggest barriers to adults accessing training were, unsurprisingly, cost, caring/family responsibilities, poor health, and the aforementioned lack of confidence. Interestingly a past negative educational experience was rarely a barrier. Below is the full chart.
The take up of education and training was exacerbated by a gender effect: Men responded more to incentives that were job or pay-related while women tended to choose more personal reasons such as meeting new people and building confidence. A higher proportion of men than women said an increased income would encourage further training and learning in the future and that their jobs and their ability to do them would be improved. Furthermore, more women than men said family and/or caring responsibilities would cause difficulties. Personal reasons, such as a lack of confidence also showed themselves as an issue for a higher proportion of women than men
It would be interesting to compare these barriers that prevent adults from accessing or aspiring to HE study with mature student drop out reasons. Similarities would provide clear signposting on how HE institutions could better attract, support, and retain mature students which, while important in itself, is particularly acute during this period of squeezed recruitment and the young population dip.

Care Leavers – LSE have released a blog explaining why the national figure that only 6% of care leavers progress to HE is inaccurate and that tracking care leavers (who are rarely in a position to perform well educationally at age 16) to age 23 bring the entry rate up to almost 12% (research here). The article goes on to explore other care leaver related factors such as the importance of alternative vocational routes into HE and warns against using the entry statistics as they mask the difficulties with retention of care leavers whilst studying.

Alternative Spending – Wonkhe’s Let’s go fly a kite series sees three bloggers come up with some alternative ideas by which to tackle Access and Participation.

Impact of Selective Secondary Education in progressing to HE

HEPI have published The impact of selective secondary education on progression to HE. It finds that grammar schools potentially contribute to social mobility by enabling better access to elite higher education. It considers the shortcomings of research which mainly utilise Free School Meals as the main data indicator.

The report highlights that:

A pupil from the most disadvantaged POLAR quintile is more than twice as likely to progress to Oxbridge if they live in a selective area rather than a non-selective area.
BME pupils are more than five times as likely to progress to Oxbridge if they live in a selective area. It notes that England’s has 163 grammar schools which contribute 30% more BME students to Cambridge than all 1,849 non-selective schools combined.

The report calls for:

Government to expand the Select School Expansion Fund in disadvantaged areas where this is supported by the relevant local authority.
Non-selective schools to improve their efforts at enabling progression of high-ability pupils to highly selective universities and Oxbridge, working with grammar schools where appropriate.
Department for Education to commission research explicitly considering the impact of selective schooling on the social mobility of children from households below median income.

On the report Wonkhe state: The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has published a provocative new paper on grammar schools and selective university access…It argues that grammars increase the likelihood of progression for pupils from the bottom two quintiles of social disadvantage and for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) pupils. The analysis attempts to factor in the chances of children from different groups getting into a grammar school, and how those children who do get in perform.

It also examines the performance of new specialist maths schools and considers positive attitudes towards grammar schools among some of the public (compared to educational experts).

The report received much press attention:

The i – Grammar schools ‘significantly boost chances of poor pupils attending top universities’
Schools Week – Poor pupils at grammar schools twice as likely to attend Oxbridge, study claims
tes – Grammars boost poorer pupils’ chances of getting into top universities
The Times – Beacon grammars could take more poorer pupils
The Times – The Times view on grammar schools: they provide only part of the answer
Telegraph – Grammar schools send more ethnic minority students to Cambridge than all comprehensives combined
Sky news – Grammar schools benefit disadvantaged kids says think tank
The Daily Mail – Pupils from the poorest families are TWICE as likely to get into Oxbridge if they attend a grammar school, report finds

Nick Hillman, HEPI Director, stated:

‘The debate on grammar schools has become very one sided. Researchers line up to condemn them for inhibiting social mobility, and the schools do not perform well on every single measure. But the full evidence is more nuanced and shows some pupils benefit a great deal.
Compared to other countries, we have a hyper-selective university system. Given so many people benefit from attending a grammar school, it seems what works for universities may also sometimes work for schools.’

Other News

Unconditional Offers: The OfS response to the Commons Education Committee’s report on value for money suggests the review of unconditional offer making will be published in Spring 2019.

Knowledge Exchange: Explaining a PhD thesis to the public can be tricky. In this light hearted article read how Canada is tackling this through the medium of cake.

Essay Mills: the ASA banned online advertising by essay mill Oxbridge Essays – here is QAA’s coverage of the judgement. The Independent also covered the decision.

Academic Freedom: Oxford law students have petitioned for a professor to be dismissed due to his opinions on homophobia. It is debated here on the Today programme and then featured in Parliament:

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): May we have a debate on the importance of academic freedom? Universities are about the free and frank exchange of ideas, even if they are unfashionable and unpopular. Is it not wholly unacceptable to suggest that a respected academic such as John Finnis, emeritus professor of law and legal philosophy, who has taught at the University of Oxford for some 40 years, should be removed from office simply for holding traditional Catholic views? Is that not the opposite of diversity and open, robust debate?
Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is essential that young people at university learn how to engage in robust debate and to challenge views with which they may not agree. The solution is not to silence those who make them. The Government said in our response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report that we have concerns about the culture in universities in relation to free speech, and we made it clear that all “education is a place where students should be exposed to a range of ideas, including those that may be controversial and unpopular—and where they learn to think critically and challenge those who they disagree with, not shut them down.”

Accounting of student loans:

Q – Wes Streeting: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if he will ensure that the level of funding allocated to universities is not reduced as a result of the ONS decision on the treatment of student loans in Government accounts.
A – Chris Skidmore: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) announced a new treatment of student loans in the public sector finances and national accounts on 17 December 2018. The decision by the ONS relates to the recording of student loans in the national accounts and public sector finances. Prior to the announcement of the ONS review, the government had already launched the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding in which, amongst other features of the system, funding is being considered.The review is considering how to ensure that the education system for those aged 18 years and over is accessible to all, is supported by a funding system that provides value for money and works for students and taxpayers. In addition, the review is considering how the education system incentivises choice and competition across the sector and encourages the development of the skills that we need as a country.

AND

Q – Wes Streeting: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the amount by which the deficit will increase in 2018 as a result of the ONS decision on the treatment of student loans in Government accounts.
A – Elizabeth Truss: The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) published estimates of potential impacts of the new treatment on the deficit in their October 2018 Economic and fiscal outlook. However, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has made it clear that there is a lot to decide before their methodology is finalised. The ONS currently aim to fully implement the new treatment for student loans in the public sector finances in September 2019.

Immigration:

Q – Lord Goodlad: Whether they have conducted an evaluation of the Tier 4 visa pilot for masters students; if so, when it was completed; and what changes are now proposed in the Immigration Rules.
A – Baroness Williams Of Trafford: An initial evaluation of the Tier 4 Visa Pilot was published on gov.uk on 19 December. The evaluation supported the proposals set out in the Immigration White Paper: The UK’s future skills-based immigration system.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

November 27, 2018

Shaping Media Policy and Regulation

BRIAN, Impact, Knowledge Transfer, policy John Oliver

Following a business engagement event on Digital Strategy and Business Transformation and subsequent publications in academic and practitioner journals, Dr Oliver’s work on the strategic digital transformations of the UKs Creative Industries and media firms has been credited with shaping Ofcom’s media policy and regulation. Ofcom recently commented that his research into the how Sky Plc had managed the digital transition over the past twenty years provided them with a unique insight into Sky’s strategic approach, and it enabled them to “think differently about their ‘growth strategy’ and diversification into new markets such as broadband, fixed and mobile telephony”. Ofcom concluded that Sky had in fact contributed to increased levels of competition in those sectors.

Ofcom also confirmed that the research had helped them to consider their remit as a communications regulator and the potential areas where they could use their expertise in the future, most notably in terms of the potential future regulation of the internet.

Dr Oliver’s research – ‘Strategic Transformations in the Media’ can be found on BRIAN.

November 26, 2018

HE Policy update for the w/e 23rd November 2018

Impact, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, policy, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

Considering we were late and included much of Monday’s news in the last update, this is a bumper update for you. Lots of data and lots of speculation about fees etc. We have managed to avoid the B word this week – as you will have had enough of it from all the other news sources.

Internships

Sophie Bradfield, the Policy & Campaigns Coordinator for SUBU, returns with another guest piece for us this week

Sutton Trust has published research today on graduate internships detailing that “39% of graduates in their twenties have done an internship, including almost half (46%) of young graduates under 24.” These statistics have a direct correspondence with research published in a Lancaster University HECSU-funded Graduate Resilience Project in 2016, looking at how students transition after graduating, where “45% of respondents identified a concern that they lacked relevant experience.” Pairing this with the competition for graduate jobs, it’s of no surprise that so many students seek to undertake internships. At BU gaining placements and real-world experience is a unique selling point and as BU proudly states on the placement information page “90% of our graduates have relevant work experience and this can give you a real head start in the competitive jobs market.” The Students’ Union at Bournemouth University (SUBU) is in absolute agreement that offering opportunities to gain experience can really help students to stand out from the crowd; learn transferable skills for employment; and increase employability and so we have a lot of extra-curricular opportunities on offer for students and collaborate with BU on a number of joint projects including recruiting paid students to be on programme review panels.

(more…)

November 20, 2018

KEIT-flying – Autumn 2018

Business Engagement, Events, Impact, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team, Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Transfer Partnership, Public engagement, Research communication, Student Engagement Amanda Edwards

Welcome back to the wonderful world of Knowledge Exchange and Impact! We may not have blogged for a while, but we have been working hard to ensure that BU’s research and knowledge is informed by society for the benefit of society. Here are a selection of our achievements for the last month:

Public Engagement

We ran 10 successful events for the ESRC Festival of Social Science (3-10 November), reaching around 350 people across Bournemouth and London. Research projects across all four Faculties were highlighted and topics encompassed sex, sexuality and gender, creative responses to ageing and loneliness, face super-recognisers, responsible online gambling, visual storytelling for impact and the inevitable Brexit. Plus, there were dogs from Caring Canines, who pretty much stole the show.

November’s Cafe Scientifique was attended by 44 people, who came to hear Dr Xun He’s talk on how behaviour is shaped by other people’s actions. Next month (4 December) Dr Rebecca Rendell will be discussing the physiology of living life to the extreme. Cafe Boscanova, 650 Christchurch Road, Boscombe, 7.30-9pm. (Upcoming events at Cafe Scientifique.)

Social Media

The impact officers collectively joined Twitter (check out the account here) and successfully used the platform to promote various public engagement events as well as keep academics informed about all things REF and impact.

Student Engagement

Dr Deborah Gabriel discussed political issues surrounding race in the education system at October’s TalkBU chat session. Later this month (22 November), Dr Jane Healy will be talking about hate crime directed towards people with disabilities. Follow #TalkBU and @BU_Research on Twitter, or the BU Research blog for regular news, research and event updates.

The deadline for submissions to BU’s annual research conference – Showcasing Undergraduate Research Excellence (SURE) 2019 is 20 December. For more information, visit https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/showcasing-undergraduate-research-2019

REF Preparations

Throughout October, strategy meetings for each UOA were held, where members of RKEO’s Impact team, UOA leads, impact champions and PDRAs agreed a plan of action for the submission of BU’s impact case studies to REF2021. The REF website has a searchable database of all the 2014 impact case studies here.

Team Members: Update

We said goodbye to Jane Kavanagh-Lauridsen, who had been covering Genna del Rosa’s maternity leave. She is off to the University of Southampton to be their Business Engagement Manager – and of course we wish her well.

Since the last KEIT post, four new Impact Officers have been working with the different faculties to help develop impact case studies and promote research impact generally. If you haven’t already met them, they are: Amanda Edwards (FST), Matt Fancy (FM) Amanda Lazar (HSS) and Brian McNulty (FMC).

If you would like support or advice on all things impact and knowledge exchange, please contact the relevant person below:

Research Communications Manager: Rachel Bowen

Research Facilitator – Industrial Collaboration: Ehren Milner

Engagement and Impact Facilitator: Genna del Rosa

Knowledge Exchange and Impact Officer: Daniela Doncakova

Knowledge Exchange Advisor: Ayesha Pyke

Student Engagement and Communications Coordinator: Isabelle Ralfe

Research Communication Coordinator: Sacha Gardener

November 19, 2018

HE policy update for the w/e 16th November 2018

EU, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, policy, Public engagement, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

Last week was dominated by the Brexit political turmoil and no major HE reports were launched (although there are some coming later this week). The media continued to wring all the coverage they could out of the fee cut speculations and there was news on an American university who is currently registering with the OfS to takeover a London university college. And on Monday there was news for the TEF review and on accelerated degree fees.

TEF Review

The details for the Independent Review of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) have been announced. The Terms of Reference are here and the 2016 policy paper has also been shared here.

(more…)

October 18, 2018

Creative Futures in Projects and Programmes event in London for ESRC Festival of Social Science 2018

Events, Fusion, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement, Research communication, Student Engagement, student research, Uncategorized kthompson

From the successful event in 2017 titled “Putting Social Science into Project Management” and building on the presentation “Future of Project Management” …

Dr Karen Thompson of the Department of Leadership, Strategy and Organisations is delighted to be collaborating once again with Dr Paul Summers of the University of Winchester, UCL and the Association for Project Management to host a project management event in London on 8^th November 2018 as part of the ESRC Festival of Social Science.

‘Creative Futures in Projects and Programmes’ will bring together project practitioners and researchers for a unique dialogue about the future of project management. With a focus on the human dimension of projects, this will be a showcase for current qualitative research on projects and will feature initiatives from practice and student research. A series of presentations, posters and videos will prompt creative thinking and discussion of what the future might hold for project and programme management. Presentations will include:

Tom Taylor

Tom Taylor, Principle of Dashdot, founding partner of Buro Four and a vice-President of APM, speaking on “Looking! And Thinking Ahead! Fashions and Trends in the Management of Projects and Programmes”

Emily Miles, University College London, on “Where are the Women in Major Projects?”

Dr Clara Cheung, University of Manchester, on “Measuring what works: workplace well-being of project professionals”

Clive Powell, Middlesex University London, on “Project Management & Improvisation: Research findings from literature review and analysis of first cut qualitative data”

Dr Nigel Williams also from the Department of Leadership, Strategy and Organisations at BU and Karen will provide an overview of their work on Responsible Project Management.

And Daniel Nicholls, APM Research Manager, will provide an update on their latest research.

In addition, there will be opportunities for practitioners to share their project headaches and discuss issues with researchers and other practitioners. As last year, the event will conclude with a panel of experts sharing their views on a selection of pressing issues suggested by the audience, in an exciting BBC ‘Question Time’ style debate.

The event is free to attend but booking is required: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/creative-futures-in-projects-and-programmes-tickets-51241202817

We are organising a coach from BU. If you would like to reserve a place, you must email kthompson@bournemouth.ac.uk BEFORE 1st November 2018.

October 15, 2018

HE policy update for the w/e 12th October 2018

EU, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, PG research, policy, Public engagement, Research communication, Research news, Student Engagement jforster

Student Loans – further sales

On Wednesday the Government announced their intention to sell off another set of student loans (written statement here). Angela Rayner Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary was granted an Urgent Question within Parliament to raise the sale and requested a statement from Universities Minister Sam Gyimah. Sam stated:

I want to explain to the House the rationale for the sale of the student loan book and make some important points. The sale will categorically not result in private investors setting the terms or operating the collection of repayments. Loans in scope will continue to be serviced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Student Loans Company on the same basis as equivalent unsold loans. Investors will have no right to change any of the current loan arrangements or to directly contact borrowers. Furthermore, the Government’s policies on student finance and higher education are not being altered by the sale. These older loans, the borrowers of which benefited from lower tuition fees and lower interest rates, are not in the scope of the current review of post-18 education and funding.
The sale represents an opportunity for the Government to guarantee money up front today, rather than fluctuating and uncertain payments over a longer period. That will allow the Government to invest in other policies with greater economic and social returns. We will proceed with the sale only if market conditions remain favourable and if the final value-for-money assessment is positive.

Angela Rayner continued to question the Minister stating the sale related to £4 billion of the student loan book and requesting for a valuation of the loans up for sale (it wasn’t provided). She also highlighted that the National Audit Office findings suggested the DfE made a loss of £900 million on the previous student loan book sale, with £600 million in future income lost. Finally she asked:

Will the Minister confirm that when the sales go ahead the Government will lose a source of income for as long as 25 years in exchange for a one-off payment? Can he give us any justification for the policy of selling off an asset to flatter this Government’s terrible position on national debt? With nearly £1 billion lost in the previous sale, just how low would the sale price have to go before the Government decided that selling simply was not worth it?
Sam Gyimah responded: Student loan sales in this country have happened over nearly two decades. This is not new…The National Audit Office did refer to the write-down of the loan book, but anybody who has studied accounting will know that the present value of a future income stream will be lower than the value if one waited 30 years. In capturing some of that money, the Government can invest in vital public services today, and that is the rationale for selling the student loan book…The sale will also be good for the taxpayer. Once people have been to university, it serves no public purpose to have the money tied up. The sale will release that money to invest in other priorities. On the valuation, the face value of the sale is £3.9 billion, but what we will do and how we will look to proceed will ultimately depend on market conditions.

The Lords were also granted a debate on the topic and picked up where Angela Rayner left off.

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour): I listened to Mr Gyimah’s exchange today with my colleague Angela Rayner, the shadow Secretary of State. Unfortunately, he dodged all of her questions on the valuation of the loans the Government are selling. He simply confirmed that the Government would forgo the 25-year revenue stream in favour of a one-off receipt…The Government have said that the revenue from selling off student loans now will enable them to invest in vital public services today. We all know that the Treasury has the final say on specifically where this windfall will go, but surely most, if not all, of it should be reinvested in the education budget; goodness knows there is a need for it.
In a later statement Angela Rayner, commented: “The last time the Tories sold off a slice of the student loan book they lost hundreds of millions of pounds, yet this latest announcement shows they have learnt absolutely nothing…These repeated experiments with privatisation are not in the interests of either taxpayers or the students facing a mountain of debt for a university education… instead of fixing the problem the Tories are resorting to a short-term fix at a long-term cost to the country.

MoneySavingExpert.com immediately blogged to reassure students their repayments wouldn’t be affected by the proposed sale. MoneySupermarket have a breakdown of student spending which highlights a £142 weekly shortfall in the student loan against outgoings.

Brexit: EU Students and Staff

Wonkhe report: Higher education staff who are EU residents are to be prioritised in a new phase of the EU Settlement Scheme pilot, which will open in November. Eligible to apply are those who are employed by or work at a higher education institution or overseas higher education institution in the UK which is classified as such on the Tier 4 Register of licensed sponsors. The new phase will be a further pilot to scale up the testing of the scheme in addition to HE staff it also covers the health and social care sector. The new phase will open on November 1 and will run until 21 December this year.

Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive of Universities UK, stated:

“There are nearly 50,000 EU nationals working in UK universities and they make a vitally important contribution to our campuses and communities. Many leading researchers and key university staff in the UK are from other EU countries. This enables our universities to maintain their world-class excellence in teaching and research. Highly trained international technical, professional and support staff also play an important role in our universities.

“We welcome the news therefore that they will be able to obtain settled or pre-settled status as one of the earliest groups in the scheme. This will provide much needed clarity for our EU staff and for universities. It is vital for our economy and society that the UK retains and continues to attract the best and brightest from across Europe post-Brexit.

The Immigration Minister also stated the government’s intention to double the Immigration Health Surcharge (HIS) to £400 per year (or £300 per year for students). This change will require ratification in Parliament by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

AI & Industrial Strategy

Next Tuesday the Education Committee will meet Pepper the robot who will answer questions in a session on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Pepper is part of an international research project developing the world’s first culturally aware robots aimed at assisting with care for older people. The Committee will hear about her work with students across the faculties at Middlesex University, including a project involving teaching primary level children, and what role increased automation and robotics might play in the workplace and classroom of the future. After a demonstration by Pepper, the Committee will explore with witnesses, including those from Middlesex University, how robots can be used to support learning, and the skills needed to adapt to the growth in artificial intelligence and automation.

UTCs

University Technical Colleges (UTCs) are in the news again with the Guardian drawing on the Education Policy Institute (EPI) report which finds UTCs ineffective as 50% of students drop out. UTCs are for 14-19 year olds, with a strong focus on technical education. They are sponsored by universities and supported by employers. The EPI report notes that there are 50 UTCs open in England. An additional 10 having closed or fundamentally changed into a different institution type in recent years.

UTCs: provision and characteristics

Many UTCs are struggling with student numbers. A third of students are enrolled at one of the 20 UTCs with decreasing student numbers.
A huge proportion of UTC students are dropping out after two years. Over half of students enrolled leave between the ages of 16 and 17, failing to progress from Key Stage 4 (14-16) into Key Stage 5 (16-18). Students with lower GCSE results, special educational needs and those from disadvantaged backgrounds are the least likely to continue.
These significant drop-out rates in UTCs continue after age 16. Those that remain for post-16 study are still far less likely to complete their final studies than students in other types of education:
– 63% of UTC students studying broader vocational qualifications completed their final assessment, compared to 83% nationally.
– 69% studying occupation-specific qualifications finished, compared to 81% nationally.
– For A-levels, 80% of students finished, compared to 94% nationally.
A large proportion of UTCs receive poor inspection outcomes from Ofsted:
– 1 in 5 were rated ‘inadequate’ – twice the national average.
– 2 in 5 were rated ‘requires improvement’ – four times more than the national average.
– Just 4% were rated ‘outstanding’ – compared to 22% of secondary schools.

Progress and outcomes of students in UTCs

UTC students make almost a whole grade less progress between leaving primary education and the end of Key Stage 4 than other students in state-funded schools. Significantly, this poor progress is particularly acute for high attainers, who make over a grade’s less progress than high attainers in all state-funded schools. When considering maths alone, UTC students as a whole lag behind by almost half a grade. Only around half of UTC students achieve at least a pass in GCSE English and maths, compared with two-thirds nationally.
UTC students who stay on to study A levels also perform below the state funded average. The average grade obtained at A level in UTCs is a D, compared to the average of a grade C in all state funded institutions. However, students taking technical and vocational qualifications at a UTC perform close to the national average – but higher than those in Further Education colleges. On average they achieve a distinction in applied general qualifications (mainly BTECs) and Tech levels.
UTC students perform well when retaking their GCSEs – improving their grades in English and maths by around a third of a grade.
20% of Key Stage 5 leavers go on to do an apprenticeship, three times the national average (7%), suggesting that UTCs are delivering good school-work transitions.

Supporting skills needs in the economy

UTCs offer more technical pathways than other school types, with students much more likely to choose to study STEM subjects: 10% of UTC Key Stage 4 entries are in computer science (2% are nationally), 8% are in chemistry and/or physics (twice the national average), 16% in science general/combined (12% are nationally). All these calculations exclude English and maths.
UTCs are ensuring students are trained for jobs in technical industries where high-skilled employment is expected to grow. Employment growth is projected in sectors that UTCs specialise in such as construction, IT, and health. This could present increased employment opportunities for students in UTCs.

Recommendations

The government should consider changing the admissions age for UTCs from 14 to 16. While it is common in other countries for students to make a transition in education before 16, England essentially has a pre- and post-16 system. UTCs have struggled with admissions at age 14. With poor levels of progress and retention, it is not clear that students are benefiting from a 14-19 education.
With provision starting at age 16, UTCs should focus on delivering high-quality existing technical qualifications and eventually the new ‘T-levels’ – relevant to local and national skill needs. With UTCs only focusing on ages 16-18, this would give them an opportunity to deliver differentiated, specialised, high-quality technical education. This should allow UTC students to progress to higher levels of technical education in Institutes of Technology, National Colleges, university, or other providers, should they wish to pursue further study.
Better measures are needed that account for the technical-oriented provision of UTCs. Improved destination measures are needed that also account for the characteristics of students, so that the particular intakes of UTCs can be taken into account.

Misrepresentation of Official Statistics: Schools

Last week Nick Gibb, Minster of State for School Standards stated the UK’s spending on education was the third highest in the world. It hit the headlines as it controversially included university student tuition loans as well as fees paid by private school pupils and positively misrepresented literacy rankings. The UK Statistics Authority criticised here, the letter highlighting it was the fourth time in the last 12 months the DfE has misused statistics. Damian Hinds, Secretary of State for Education, responded here providing alternative statistics to blur the lines of the previous misuse. Whereas the Permanent Secretary within the DfE, Ed Humperson, was willing to hold his hands up and say they’ll do better in this letter.

The future of UK research funding

From Research Professional: The House of Commons science and technology committee has published the written evidence for its ongoing inquiry into the balance of UK research funding. This inquiry was launched in July, two months after UK Research and Innovation published a strategic prospectus in which it announced that it was carrying out an internal review of the balance of funds between the research councils, Research England, Innovate UK and interdisciplinary research. It seems that UKRI would like to alter the balance in favour of more research across disciplinary boundaries and possibly more research that yields impact in its many forms.

It is interesting to look at who submitted evidence – not very many universities, although the Russell Group (and some of their members individually), UUK and GuildHE made submissions, alongside many of the Societies and Academies, the Wellcome Trust etc. So did the Department for BEIS.

Widening Participation, Students’ Achievement and Outcomes

A thought provoking blog on Wonkhe this week: Beyond school qualifications: how to make admissions truly inclusive. It tackles the false positives (admitting a student when it would have been better to decline) and false negatives (not offering to a student who would have done well) and considers the influence of a range of WP factors. The article favours foundation years to tackle the false negatives, and considers how efforts could be scaled up to admit on a different basis for a wider range of courses. It also highlights the pros and cons of the radical French université open access system.

The Office for Students published an early evaluation of the Addressing Barriers to Student Success programme covering the first year of programme delivery. It looks at how the programme is working, lessons learnt, and potential for cross-institutional partnerships as enablers for trialling and scaling up as well as the organisational and pedagogical approaches that seek to address differential student outcomes. Figure 3.5 on page 22 lists some of the successful activities which have addressed student success so far and page 33 has a what works diagram:

Finally the recommendation is for a three year programme (rather than the intended two) otherwise the results of the interventions will now be known and that the OfS should consider the academic calendar when funding programmes of this nature.

Parliamentary Questions

This week there were parliamentary questions on whether Pupil Premium is being used to supplement core funding, on the opt-in requirement for universities to share student mental health status information with parents, and on transition to university (mental health). Another question tackled the recruitment of Social Mobility Commissioners, the answer simply stated the recruitment was ongoing and no information would be released until the process concluded (and a further ask on the Commission recruitment attempted to establish how many applicants were solicited or unsolicited – same no response was given). . Sam Gyimah also answered a parliamentary question on student mobility study abroad programmes responding that such schemes still focus on the UK participating in the Erasmus successor programme. A further question on unconditional offers highlighted the tasking of the OfS to assess the impact unconditional offers may have on A level attainment. Finally there was a question on childcare support:

Q- David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether his Department has a policy on helping students with children to study at university while providing childcare support.

A – Sam Gyimah:

The government recognises the value of parents continuing in, or returning to, education and provides support to those enrolled on recognised education courses. Eligible student parents may be able to claim a Childcare Grant, which offers support with up to 85% of their childcare costs, depending on their household income. The maximum Childcare Grant for the 2018 to 2019 academic year is: Up to £164.70 a week for one child. Up to £282.36 a week for two or more children. Parents’ Learning Allowance is additional funding to help students who are also parents. This can be used for everyday costs of study, such as books, study materials and travel.

League tables

Birkbeck has announced that it will no longer participate in UK league tables. Their statement notes good REF outcomes and a sliver TEF, but says that their league table position “gives a totally misleading view of the College”.

Entry tariffs – UK rankings reward universities for high entry grades, measuring inputs rather than outcomes. Birkbeck admits a wide range of students at different stages of their lives to widen access to education. To do this it has flexible entry requirements rather than strict rules about A level grades – the majority of students are mature and while many have valuable work experience, they may have been outside formal education for some time. Birkbeck’s flexible entry grades have the effect of pulling it down the rankings and, in effect, this penalises the College for its mission.
Retention rates – Birkbeck’s students are often working or caring during the day and more vulnerable to changes in circumstances elsewhere in their lives. To compare this cohort with school leavers learning through daytime teaching elsewhere in the sector is misleading. Tables measure full-time students only. Birkbeck actually has one of the highest completion rates for part-time students in the sector. This reflects our expertise in supporting students combining work, family and other commitments with their degrees.
Student spend – As Birkbeck students are taught in the evening, and often work during the day, the College does not provide its own dedicated leisure facilities (although students have access to the facilities shared by all members of the University of London). Again these mean Birkbeck’s score is reduced in domestic tables.

This is really a criticism of the over-simplified view that league tables give, compared to (say) the TEF (much criticised in its own right, of course, but much more nuanced). The first point above is one that will resonate with many across the sector. Progression from year 1 to year 2 is of course a metric in the TEF, which uses benchmarks so that Birkbeck would not be penalised for its model.

Postgraduate Research Experience Survey

Advance HE published the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey 2018. They note that 16,000 postgraduates responded to the survey and list the key findings as:

Postgraduates researchers continue to rate their experience positively, with 8/10 who are satisfied overall. However, this represents a 2% decline since 2017.
They were positive about their supervision, with 9/10 PGRs satisfied with their supervisors’ knowledge, feedback and availability. Postgraduates were less positive about the research culture, with 63% of respondents reporting positively.
In contrast to undergraduate survey findings, PRES 2018 results indicate that UK domicile students of black ethnicity are the most likely to believe their research degree programme is worthwhile; and, again in contrast to the Advance HE – HEPI Student Academic Survey, postgraduate students working long hours in paid employment did not appear to be disadvantaged.
PGRs with a disability, however, were less positive about their experience, facing increasing challenges as they progress through their studies.

The OfS have also issued an invitation to tender for a taught postgraduate student survey. It is described as an exploratory sample based survey intended to gather responses from around 30,000 PG students.

To accompany the tender announcements Conor Ryan, from the OfS wrote a Wonkhe blog: Listening to the postgraduate student voice.

Advance HE will publish the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) later this month, and the UK Engagement Survey next month.

Freedom of speech

Research Professional continues what might be called a campaign to call the Minister out on his pronouncements on free speech. The latest was in the playbook last week.

Playbook readers are familiar with the occasions it has been our journalistic duty to fact-check the claims of the universities minister Sam Gyimah during his campaign for free speech on campus. It was a surprise, then, to read over the summer an interview with the minister, given to the think tank Bright Blue, in which he said he had “received countless emails and letters from students saying that free speech on their campus is being threatened or impeded”. Wondering what amounted to “countless” these days, Playbook submitted a freedom of information request to the Department for Education. We asked for details of how many emails the minister had received from students on this topic. Sadly, the department was unable to comply with our request.

It said: “‘Free speech’ is such a widely applied term, it is impossible to narrow down all of the correspondence related to this subject.” We were told that the information was held in a “correspondence logging system” and not on a spreadsheet. “So the department estimates that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the cost threshold applicable to central government. This is £600 and represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days locating, retrieving and extracting the information,” the department said.

Other news

Sexual Misconduct: AMOSSHE published an Insight report which researched students’ expectations of their universities following reporting or disclosure of sexual misconduct by or against students. The report notes a reluctance to report sexual misconduct and that emotional wellbeing support is crucial to student’s following disclosure.

UTCs: University Technical Colleges (UTCs) are in the news again with the Guardian drawing on the Education Policy Institute report which finds UTCs ineffective as 50% of students drop out.

Universal Credit: There has been significant hand wringing from the Conservatives over Universal Credit in recent times. FE News runs an article (written by Dept for Work and Pensions) on Universal Credit setting out the exceptions to the rule that full time students cannot claim Universal Credit.

A (short-ish) technical blog on HEPI this week discusses aligning Post-18 Entitlements and Apprenticeship Funding. It provides some facts and figures from level 2 to level 4. It concludes:

Arguably more thought needs to be given to publicly funded re-skilling entitlements. Potential options include:

an all-age entitlement to free tuition for a second full Level 2;
positioning fee-loans as the only source of public funding for subsequent Level 3 qualifications;
creating separate part-time HE and adult FE fee-loan budgets for subsequent Levels 4 to 6 qualifications; and
funding short courses through the National Retraining Scheme.

EEA Workers: Those following the Migration Advisory Committee’s EEA workers investigation and reporting may find this UCEA webpage interesting. It brings together the major sources on the topic and publishes the UCEA red amber green briefing response to the committee’s report.

Brexit – No deal prep: On Friday the Government released more guidance for various sectors on how to prepare for Brexit should we leave the EU with no deal.

Chief Scientific Adviser (Foreign and Commonwealth Office): Professor Carole Mundell was announced as the new Chief Scientific Adviser. She will also continue in her role as Professor of Extragalactic Astronomy at Bath University. The Chief Scientific Adviser represents UK science interests internationally, using science relationships to deliver the UK’s foreign policy priorities. She will work closely with the UK’s Science and Innovation Network to facilitate links between British and international scientists to drive future economic growth; tackle global challenges such as Anti-Microbial Resistance, Patient Safety, girls’ education and to support the conservation and sustainable use of the Ocean.

Professor Mundell commented: Science is an international endeavour and is most effective when it draws on diverse talent to push the frontier of knowledge and tackle the biggest challenges facing our planet. I am honoured to have been appointed FCO CSA and am excited to work with the UK’s Science and Innovation Network and add value to the FCO’s prosperity and security work around the world.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

66724 65070

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter | policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

October 1, 2018

EU FIRST Project

BU research, EU, Events, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team, Knowledge Transfer, open access, Research assessment, Research news lxu2012

A Bournemouth University team from the Faculty of Science and Technology visited University of Groningen for FIRST mid-term review. It was a very productive meeting with a lot of effective outcomes for research and knowledge exchange. Dr. Lai Xu and Dr. Paul de Vrieze are FIRST coordinators representing Bournemouth University and the team is pleased to announce that FIRST will continue to move towards a factory of the future for European Union.

If you want to know more about the project and get involved, please contact Dr. Lai Xu or Dr. Paul de Vrieze. You can also follow our social medial links on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube Channel.

During the mid-term review meeting, the FIRST EU project advisor Irina Elena Tiron giving a talk on RISE projects. A useful instrument for researchers in EU (and beyond).

September 28, 2018

New CMMPH publication on sex trafficking

BU research, Featured academics, Global engagement, international, Knowledge Transfer, Publishing, Research news, staff profile pages, Uncategorized, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Earlier this month the Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences published a paper co-authored by Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) staff. The paper ‘Health consequences of sex trafficking: A systematic review’ [1]. The Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences is part of the Open Access publishing of Nepal Journals OnLine (NepJOL) supported by INASP.

The review reminds us that sex trafficking is one of the most common forms of human trafficking globally. It is associated with health, emotional, social, moral and legal problems. The victims of sex trafficking when returned home are often ignored. This review explored the health consequences of sex trafficking among women and children. A total of 15 articles were included covering health risks and well-being related to sex trafficking. Sexual and physical violence among victims such as rape and repetitive stress and physical injuries were common. The prevalence of STI (sexually transmitted infections) and HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) was also reported as high. Being trafficked at a young age, having been in brothels for a longer period and sexual violence and forced prostitution were linked with a higher risk for HIV infection. Physical health problems reported included headaches, fatigue, dizziness, back pain, memory problem, stomach pain, pelvic pain, gynaecological infections, weight loss, lesions or warts, unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The studies on mental health reported that depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were commonly reported health consequences among sex trafficking victims.

The authors of the review concluded that there is a compelling need for interventions raising awareness about sex trafficking among young girls and women most at risk of being trafficked. Most studies in this review have focussed on the physical health problems of the trafficked victims although there is also remarkable mental burden amongst those victims. Key policy makers, government officials, public health officials, health care providers, legal authorities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) should be made aware about the health risks and consequences of trafficking. Trafficking consequences should be recognised as a health issue and all the sectors involved including regulating bodies should collaborate to fight against sex trafficking

Related research in this field at Bournemouth University include the Sexual Spaces Project by Prof. Mike Silk and Dr. Amanda De Lisio on ‘Rio’s sex workers after the Olympics’ and the The Gay and Grey Project, funded through a Big Lottery Grant and led by Prof. Lee Ann Fenge.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

Reference:

Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Sharma, A., Bissell, P., Poobalan, A., Wasti S.P. (2018) Health consequences of sex trafficking: A systematic review Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, 4(1): 130-149.

September 14, 2018

NIHR and World Health Organisation joint statement – have your say!

BU Challenges, BU research, Clinical Governance, data management, Impact, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, NHS, open access, PG research, Post-award, Research communication, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy Suzy Wignall

There is an increasing emphasis on the need for researchers and sponsors to publish, and disseminate, the results of the clinical studies that they conduct. Timely disclosure of results is important ethically, morally, in the interests of research integrity and from a waste reduction perspective.
Dissemination of results, whether favourable or not, also achieves transparency – increasingly important from the perspective of the recent introduction of the GDPR.

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) have signed-up to the WHO’s joint statement on public disclosure of results from clinical trials. The policy sets out the expectations and support on offer in order for research communities to comply. The draft policy is available to read, with a quick survey open until 21st September, for you to have your say.

BU has access to the ClinicalTrials.gov system – get in touch for access and for the opportunity to register your study and results in the public domain.

August 30, 2018

REGISTER NOW: 18th September 2018 – Sixth Annual Wessex CRN Research Meeting & Regional BGS

BU research, conferences, Events, HSS Our 9 Research Entities, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, NHS, PG research jbentley

Click links for programme and registration form, spaces limited!

Programme for SIXTH Annual Wessex CRN and Regional BGS 18 Sept 2018 with sponsors v3

REGISTRATION FORM for 6th annual Wessex CRN Research BGS MEET

ING 18 09 2018

August 16, 2018

Sascha Dov Bachmann’s Research is featured in newest House of Commons Defence Committee Report

BU research, Featured academics, Impact, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement, Research communication, Research news, the conversation sbachmann

Sascha Dov Bachmann (Associate Professor in International Law (Bournemouth University and Director of BU’S CROLS) and extraordinary Associate Professor in War Studies (Swedish Defence University, SWE) spoke on Hybrid Warfare and Lawfare in Brussels this November and Andres Munoz (NATO SHAPE, LEGAL OFFICE) submission RUSSIAN LAWFARE CAPABILITIES AS A THREAT TO THE ARCTIC has been included and cited in the House of Commons Defence Committee’s 12th Report of Session 2017-2019

Sascha Dov’s work is repeatedly referenced on the NATO legal virtual desktop, thereby demonstrating the high-impact and publicity which his research generates. His research on Hybrid Warfare and the role of Cyber and Lawfare has been identified as 3* plus impact in the last institutional stocktaking exercise at BU and is being developed further. He has been invited to join NATO SHAPE as visiting Research Fellow.

July 27, 2018

New Research Collaboration between Bournemouth University and La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

BRIAN, BU Challenges, BU research, conferences, Events, Featured, Featured academics, Fusion, Global engagement, humanities, Impact, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement, REF Subjects, Research communication, Research news, staff profile pages, the conversation, Uncategorized sbachmann

Dr Sascha Dov Bachmann, Associate Professor in International Law (BU) and War Studies (Swedish Defence University), acting Director of BU’s Centre for Conflict,Rule of Law and Society has joined forces with Professor Louis de Koker and Professor Pompeu Casanovas from La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia to convene the conference

Hybrid threats and the Asia – Pacific region: Hybrid warfare and cyber-attacks within the Australian – Pacific context

Global peace and security has seen the arrival of new security threats in the form of hybrid threats and cyber-attacks.

This symposium provides a platform for the discussion of a new form of warfare, namely ‘hybrid warfare’. Hybrid war is the use of a range of non-conventional methods (e.g. cyber warfare and lawfare) in order to disrupt, discourage and disable an adversary’s capabilities without engaging in open hostilities and may use the full range of military and non-military options for achieving its strategic objectives. Such hybrid warfare might include aspects of ‘cyber terrorism’, ‘cyber war’ and cyber-based ‘information operations’, a topic of particular interest given Russia’s ‘Ukrainian Spring’, the continuing threat posed by radical Islamist groups in Africa, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region as well geopolitical shifts.

The interdisciplinary symposium will discuss military doctrines, new and traditional approaches to war and peace and its perceptions, the use of cyber warfare, the use of mass media communication to meddle in internal state affairs, including impact on state elections and public sentiment, as well as the use of lawfare (the strategy of using – or misusing – law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve a war-fighting objective) to achieve military goals in a non-kinetic way and the use of various means to disrupt a nation’s economy, public services and national interests.

At the heart of the symposium stand the questions of how to increase resilience and whether responses to such hybrid threats need to change in the future.

This seminal conference brings together academics and military professionals from the region and beyond to discuss new security challenges from a Asia-Pacific and especially an Australian perspective.

Deadline for submissions: 31 October 2018

Symposium Date: 25 – 26 March 2019

Place: La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

Proposals must be sent by email to the Lead Convenor: Professor (AP) Sascha Dov Bachmann (email: sbachmann@bournemouth.ac.uk).

Convenors:

Professor (AP) Sascha Dov Bachmann (email: sbachmann@bournemouth.ac.uk (Lead Convenor)
Professor Pompeu Casanovas (CasanovasRomeu@latrobe.edu.au) and Professor Louis de Koker (L.deKoker@latrobe.edu.au).

Category / Knowledge Transfer

A big week for the KEF?

Spring Statement

Access and Participation

International Students

Part Time Distance Maintenance Loans – shelved

Care leavers

Brexit

Other news

Subscribe!

Value for money (1) – cutting low value university courses

Value for money (2) – no secrets revealed yet

Value for money (3) – the OfS position

TEF

Brexit update

KEF

Widening Participation and Achievement

Impact of Selective Secondary Education in progressing to HE

Other News

Subscribe!

Internships

TEF Review

Student Loans – further sales

Brexit: EU Students and Staff

AI & Industrial Strategy

UTCs

Misrepresentation of Official Statistics: Schools

The future of UK research funding

Widening Participation, Students’ Achievement and Outcomes

League tables

Postgraduate Research Experience Survey

Freedom of speech

Other news

Subscribe!

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics