Tagged / degree classification

January 28, 2021

HE Policy Update for the w/e 28th January 2021

Industry collaboration, innovation, international, NHS, Student Engagement jforster

The media and sector are still digesting last week’s policy onslaught. You can read more in last week’s BU policy update here (for staff) or here on the blog. We also did a separate 6 page summary of the White Paper for BU readers.

There are new student statistics out, a new independent reviewer of Prevent, the international students’ graduate visa is still unclear and remote learning must continue for most students.

Online teaching continues

Restrictions remain in place for universities who are only permitted to offer remote learning until 8 March at earliest. Students on ‘critical courses’ such as medical, clinical and healthcare subjects will continue with their Covid-secure face to face teaching. Students and staff on campus are instructed to continue to take part in twice weekly testing on offer to help limit transmission and identify asymptomatic cases. The Government’s press release is here. The position will be reviewed on 22nd February.

Parliamentary News

Former Universities Minister, Chris Skidmore, comments on the recent raft of HE policy documents issued by the Government. Chris says:

…it is tempting to think that something is happening in the education world. That temptation should be tempered, for nothing really will—or indeed can—happen until the sound of the Treasury till ringing open at the Spending Review later in the year. Samuel Beckett might have titled this particular ongoing saga, ‘Waiting for Rishi’.
Still, enough morsels—consultations on consultations—have been thrown out there to keep the higher education policy world busy for now. And those with learned, occasionally bitter, experience of these matters know that there’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip, as the history of white papers and their eventual chrysalis into legislative butterflies demonstrates.

Tuition Fees & Student Loans:

The latest petition to reduce the maximum student fee from £9,250 to £3,000 has been rejected by the Government with this rebuff: Tuition fee levels must represent value for money and ensure that universities are properly funded. Government is not considering a reduction in maximum fee levels to £3,000. There is a full Government response here which closely follows the established party line and ticks all the HE policy bingo boxes you would expect it to.

The Government also confirmed there are no plans to cap the income repayment threshold for student loans.

Research

R&D Roadmap: The Government published the results of their consultation on the proposed UK Research and Development (R&D) Roadmap.

During the November 2020 Spending Review the Government committed to cement the UK’s status as a global leader in science and innovation by investing £14.6 billion in R&D in 2021/22, supporting the R&D Roadmap commitments and helping to consolidate the UK’s position as a science superpower on the road to spending 2.4% of GDP on R&D by 2027. The Government report the research community was overwhelmingly supportive of the ambitions set out in the R&D roadmap (published July 2020). The Roadmap proposals included setting up an Office for Talent and creating an Innovation Expert Group to review and improve how the government supports research; the proposals are expected to be developed into a comprehensive R&D plan.

Dods summarise the responses:

Responses emphasised that the sustainability of funding was an important factor in achieving bigger research breakthroughs and for strengthening our research infrastructure and institutions. Specifically, support for a balanced portfolio of research and innovation activities, with a diverse range of funding mechanisms was considered “important to increase the effective application of new knowledge and encourage innovation.
Responses also suggested that place-based funding—which is a major priority of the government—could build upon local expertise and existing strengths using both new and existing mechanisms. Increased funding for both research and innovation activities, as well as for public engagement activities, was viewed as important to inspire and support the new generation.
The need for an improved research and innovation culture was also emphasised. Responses indicated that improving research and innovation culture through promoting greater diversity in the R&D community, making R&D a more attractive career, and reducing bureaucratic processes were vital factors in achieving bigger research breakthroughs, encouraging innovation, and attracting, retaining and developing diverse people and teams.
Responses also suggested that research must be informed by, and partnered with, a wide range of relevant stakeholders to achieve real-world impact. Other key themes that emerged from the survey included greater support for collaboration and knowledge exchange across the R&D landscape, a strategic and long-term approach to set a clear direction for the UK and continued support for education, training and skills.

You can read all the responses in detail here.

Whilst discussing the next steps the Government have committed to publishing a new places strategy for R&D (including the devolved nations). They also continue to explore how we best create an environment where diverse and talented people from all over the world are enabled and encouraged to work to the best of their ability and fulfil their potential in their career of choice.

Innovation slump: The National Centre for Universities and Business published a report on the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on how universities contribute to innovation. It found that:

nearly 90% of UK universities reported a significant proportion (I.e. over 10%) of their innovation projects had been delayed due to the pandemic.
48% of the universities surveyed reported that the scale and scope of innovation projects were being reduced.
36% reported that more than 10% of their innovation activities and projects with external partners were cancelled. With 45% recognising a decline of at least a 6% in the overall level of innovation activities they have with industrial partners. Aerospace, automotive manufacturing and within the creative industries experience bigger adverse effects.
Institutions stated that the lack of financial resources to support collaborations, insufficient government funding to such activities and the inability to access the necessary facilities and equipment for work to continue were the reasons behind the reduction in innovation.
It was also recognised that the roles of universities in driving innovation may change as the UK confronts the economic recovery

On moving forward the report finds:

Government schemes helped universities continue to contribute to innovation through the crisis
More needs to be done to enable universities to contribute fully to economic renewal
More funding for core knowledge exchange services, translation and commercialisation, and challenge & outcome driven programmes
Supporting place-making
Targeted support for place and sector recovery from Covid
Improve flexibility, bureaucracy and terms of funding
Ensure metrics capture diversity of contributions and reward diversity of universities
Ensure long-term sustainability of the university system and its ability to contribute to innovation and economic development

Dr Joe Marshall, Chief Executive of NCUB said:

Covid-19 has brought the importance of collaboration between academia and industry firmly into public awareness. Indeed, breakthroughs such as the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine are only possible because of the advent of collaborative partnerships. This is why the new survey data released today is so worrisome. Nearly 90% of universities have been forced to delay a significant proportion (more than 10%) of new innovation projects with external partners, and over a third have reported that projects have been cancelled.
Maintaining these types of innovation projects is vital if we are to boost productivity, improve livelihoods, and drive forward economic recovery. Innovation requires collaboration. And we see time and time again that collaboration requires strong partners. We are therefore urgently encouraging all businesses and UK universities to continue to form these vital partnerships. What’s more, we are also calling on the Government to take proactive steps to help companies stay afloat and investing in R&D through the crisis. This includes extending Covid-19 support schemes and postponing repayment of loans until lockdown restrictions are significantly eased. In no uncertain terms, for the UK to emerge from this crisis stronger, we need to encourage innovation. Driving an innovative economy, through tax incentives, effective regulation and well-targeted support schemes must be a fundamental component of the March 2021 Budget. We need to see action now, before it’s too late.

Tomas Ulrichsen, Director of the University Commercialisation and Innovation Policy Evidence Unit at the University of Cambridge, who led the study and authored the report said: The new findings released today show that Covid-19 has had a hugely disruptive impact on universities and their ability to continue to contribute to innovation through the current health and economic crisis. We have seen the transformational effects of universities and businesses working together in finding practical and innovative solutions to wicked societal problems. This is why the findings of our study are so worrying. A strong, resilient and sustainable system of universities, research institutes and technology development organisations, working in close partnership with the private, charitable, and public sectors will be crucial to driving an innovation-led economic recovery and tackling other critical and urgent global challenges. Unless we proactively tackle the many challenges facing universities and their innovation partners to reverse these worrying trends, we risk not only hampering our economic recovery but also the UK’s longer-term competitiveness in key sectors.

Research Professional comment on the significant proportion of innovation projects delayed due to Covid: This is not surprising given that most institutions are still imposing bans on ‘non-essential travel’, labs have been closed periodically during the pandemic and industrial partners have been making extensive use of the furlough scheme. There is a limit to the innovation you can do on MS Teams—it doesn’t even have a ‘breakout rooms’ function, for pity’s sake.

Research Funding Subsidy: Last week’s funding letter cut the additional teaching funding that London institutions receive to cover the additional costs relating to teaching within the capital. This prompted fears from London institutions that they may also lose research subsidies associated with their higher costs (12% inner and 8% outer London) – which would run to significant figures and threaten some London institutions’ stability. Research Professional explore this concern in London Waiting and explain that Research England have stated they haven’t yet received the funding allocations for 2021/22 so cannot consider the impact on quality related funding.

Quick News

Sustainability: The University of Exeter have launched the National Interdisciplinary Circular Economy Hub (CE-Hub). The hub will work with the five centres recently announced to explore how reusing waste materials in a wide range of industries, including textiles, construction, chemical and metals, could deliver huge environmental benefits and boost the UK economy… It will create a repository of national research, knowledge and tools to inform new research, policy and industry solutions, facilitating collaboration across a wide range of sectors and strengthening a UK-wide community dedicated to delivering a circular economy.
Everyone loves a space story. Here is the Government’s press release on the spacewalk to install the British funded Columbus Ka-band Terminal.
Research Professional: Horizon Europe ‘will be open to UK researchers from the start’. European Commission encourages applications from, and collaboration with, UK-based researchers
The rumours that Scotland and Wales are committee to find a way to stay in Erasmus+ have bounced about ever since the announcement the UK would not take part. Research Professional covers the latest here.

Prevent

Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has announced the new Independent Reviewer of Prevent will be William Shawcross. Shawcross will have some time to settle into his role and to adjust the terms of reference and set timescales before he relaunches the Independent Review of Prevent. Originally a call for evidence as part of the review was launched in December 2019 but progress stalled due to the pandemic. Shawcross’ appointment isn’t without controversy. Prior to his confirmation in the role Muslim Engagement and Development expressed concern given his longstanding history of propagating Islamophobic views.

Industrial Strategy

All the way back in November 2017 Theresa May’s Government finally published the Industrial Strategy admist much fanfare and after months of trailing its contents. A flurry of activity and focus on the four grand challenges followed. However, Theresa May was ousted as PM and when Boris assumed the mantle there was an unofficial cooling towards the Industrial Strategy which was never explicitly stated. However, this week Boris’ Government have made a move and updated some of the missions associated with the four grand challenges and laid out further progress updates. You’ll need a keen eye to spot the new material. It looks much the same.

More engaging was this week’s BEIS Committee session Post-pandemic economic growth: Industrial Strategy which contained various elements relating to HE (quick points below). Dods have provided a fuller summary of both sessions here. The second session included testimony from both Science & Research Minister Amanda Solloway and CEO of UKRI Dame Ottoline Leyser.

The scale of ISCF initiatives had led to a remarkable acceleration in collaboration with universities and that increasing the ISCF would be welcome by the university community.
The Grand Challenges largely spent money in the right places but there were issues in how this was then used, in particular which risk sharing mechanisms were used and relative spend on pure science/blue sky research vs targeted research.
Where there are linkages between universities facilitation of collaboration between academia and business at local level to support local industrial strategies the evidence shows large spillover effects on the local economies. The Researchers In Residence programme which puts academics into industry to solve specific problems was also mentioned.
Defining success of the delivery of the industrial strategy – Leyser, stated that defining success was a contested issue. She said proximal measures such as number of patents and jobs created could be used; she said the ISCF metrics on these issues looked positive but there was an issue over whether this translated into long-term productivity.
On ISCF delays/ Innovate UK grants Solloway said BEIS needed to work to fund ways to reduce bureaucracy and get grants out quicker.

Access & Participation

White & left behind: This week the Education Committee continued its inquiry into Left behind white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds (summary of the session here). There was little content on HE aside from witness, Dr Javed Khan, Chief Executive Officer, Barnardo’s, stating that it was important not to over-emphasise the importance of university, compared with other further education pathways when he was questioned on what solutions there were to address the issue of white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds being the least likely to attend university.

Meanwhile Chris Millward, Director for Fair Access and Participation, has published a new OfS blog – White students who are left behind: the importance of place. It reiterates familiar messages that HE colleagues focussed on access will be very familiar with, alongside hints and mentions of other Governmental priorities such as levelling up and HE institutions working in partnership with schools and colleges. It even tentatively touches on the (slightly controversial but so far has flown under the radar) sudden move of the Social Mobility Commission into the Cabinet office. Below are the best bits from Millward’s blog, but, really, I’d recommend you read the succinct version by the BBC instead.

The expansion of educational opportunities, and the belief that equality of opportunity would flow from this, have not delivered for them. So they are less likely to see education as the way to improve their lives. Research suggests that this is not about low aspirations or wanting any less for children; it is about expectations – a realistic assessment of the barriers to getting on. Schools can do a lot to shift expectations, but as recent focus groups have shown, people in left-behind towns feel the decline of local institutions and civic engagement. The Social Mobility Commission has identified the need to join up educational interventions with other measures to improve local prosperity and it is now better placed to drive this across government through the Cabinet Office…universities and colleges can bring this together in their local areas through the breadth of their subject interests, their relationships with businesses and public services, and their bridging of education and skills with research and development. This equips them to create pathways through all levels of education, both full-time and while in work, and for adults as well as young people.

From the BBC article, Poor white teens in ‘left behind’ towns not going to uni:

…male white British free school meal pupils are the least likely of all the main ethnic groups to progress to higher education (DfE)
59% of youngsters from black African families on free meals went to university and 32% of black Caribbean youngsters eligible for free meals… for white pupils on free meals the figure was 16% – and only 13% for boys.
The research emphasises the importance of place, identifying particularly low entry rates in “former industrial towns and cities across the north and midlands, or coastal towns”.
But white students on free meals in London seemed to have bucked the trend, with an…entry rate that “has pulled away from that in other parts of the country” – and the capital overall has higher rates of going to university.

TASO: Wonkhe: A report from Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education (TASO) highlights the lack of good quality evidence for interventions to support care-experienced students in higher education. Summarising 57 published studies, and validating findings with 18 sector practitioners, it calls for the availability of better quality data drawing on agreed definitions. There are also recommendations that each provider should have a named contact for care-experienced students.

Exams: Minster for School Standards Nick Gibb: Although exams are the fairest way we have of assessing what a student knows, we cannot guarantee all students will be in a position to fairly sit their exams this summer.

Disability: Wonkhe: The Disabled Students’ Commission has released guidance for pupils with disabilities when applying for undergraduate courses. The guide aims to highlight potential barriers during the UCAS application process, as well as detailed routes to and eligibility for funding for reasonable adjustment.

Decolonisation: Wonkhe: The National Union of Students (NUS) has launched a library of decolonisation resources. It hosts information on what decolonisation is and links to podcasts, books, videos and articles to help readers explore, and expand skills and knowledge of the decolonising higher education movement.

Parliamentary Questions

The business case for moving the Social Mobility Commission to the Cabinet Office, and the consultations undertaken prior to the move
2019/20 disadvantaged applications and entry details
Equality – Further to their report Interim Conclusion of the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding, published on 21 January, what equality assessment they have carried out into the impact of introducing minimum entry requirements to higher education institutions on (1) Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, (2) care-leavers, (3) refugees, and (4) other under-represented groups; and what steps they are taking to ensure that such groups have equitable access to higher education
The education of excluded children during Covid
What methodology was used to determine the level of the one-off funding of £20 million to higher education providers in December 2020 to help to address student hardship during financial year 2020-21.

International

Graduate Visa Route – Covid Barrier. Research Profession explore the confusion surrounding graduate visas stating it threatens to undermine the government’s message to international students. This stems from the Government’s decision that international students who did not return to the UK by April 2021 might lose their eligibility for the Graduate Immigration Route (i.e. the right to remain in the UK for two years after completing their studies). The Government have stated: It is a core principle of the graduate route that someone must have spent some time studying in the UK…In light of the impact Covid-19 has had on international students, those who began studying overseas in autumn 2020 and who enter the UK before 6 April 2021 to complete their course will be eligible for the graduate route if they meet the requirements. And: Those who begin study overseas in January 2021 will also be eligible for the route if they enter the UK to complete their course before 27 September 2021 and meet the requirements…Any period of distance learning in the current academic year will not count against eligible students who graduate after 2021, providing they complete their course in the UK under the student route. Those who do not complete their studies in the UK will be ineligible.

Research Professional explain that the sticking point is that that government guidance for international students urged them to stay away unless their course required them to be on campus for face to face teaching. A commentator within the article states it is: highly unreasonable, and from a policy point of view self-defeating, to take fees from international students, advise them to delay travel for health policy reasons and then pronounce that they cannot follow the graduate visa route because they did not return to the UK in time. Particularly when the pandemic’s second wave is raging and they would put themselves at risk by arriving in the UK. Quite!

Vivienne Stern, Director of Universities UK International, responded: We are working closely with the government, UK universities and sector bodies to support the smooth implementation of the route and to ensure its success. Given the current Covid-related restrictions, we understand that international students are, on the whole, being advised not to travel to the UK at this time, and we continue to work with partners to ensure that students can still benefit from this opportunity. And that Universities UK was “actively working with the Home Office to explore what further flexibilities can be introduced given the ongoing restrictions”.

You can read the full Research Professional article here.

Access to Healthcare: Wonkhe cover the i News report explaining that European students who study in the UK will have to pay more than £1,000 to access healthcare, with the opportunity to claim the cost back a year or more later.

More on last week’s announcements

You can read more in last week’s BU policy update here (for staff) or here on the blog. We also did a separate 6 page summary of the White Paper for BU readers.

Admissions: Wonkhe have a short and interesting article outlining three options to address differential learning loss arising from pandemic restrictions. You’ll need to read the article to discover the options (worth doing) but these two HE-centric snippets stand out for admissions and student performance:

Because our education system, at multiple levels, is both about sorting and learning gain, it all presents two interlocking problems. One is how we fairly assess children and students given the impacts of restrictions have not been felt equally or equitably across society. The other is what we do about overall levels of learning loss which we might reasonably assume matter if we wish our society to be educated.
…If nothing else, there is a clear and present danger that universities will underestimate and underfund the support needed to address the problems presented by the intake of 2021. That seems to be a much more pressing educational issue than packing the Russell Group even tighter, destabilizing the rest of the rest of the sector in the process – which will mean no part of the sector will realistically have the time or capacity to address the issues we’re about to receive.

Credit transfer and flexible learning: HEPI have a blog “Can the pandemic bring a new dawn for flexible higher education?” by Luke Myer, Policy and Public Affairs Officer at the Quality Assurance Agency, looking at the new enthusiasm for credit transfer described in the Skills White Paper.

One major challenge identified by our participants was England’s current regulatory metrics. The importance placed on data for continuation, retention, and completion creates a regulatory disincentive to provide short, flexible higher education programmes. …So, the metrics need to change.
A related challenge is regulation from professional bodies on maintaining the currency of knowledge for particular sectors. One solution here may be to differentiate durations on the portability of different qualifications, depending on their relevance.
Along with regulation, the funding model in England was identified as a barrier. There is typically no module-based funding under the Student Loans Company’s current model; this is compounded by other limitations including inflexibility in the use of the apprenticeship levy and Equivalent and Lower Qualification (ELQ) funding restrictions.

And some of the solutions?

Bringing higher education and further education closer together will require a careful balance between joining up the funding system and avoiding damage to institutional autonomy. Our participants referenced the new tertiary systems which appear to be developing in several Asian and emerging high-income economies, which have strong permeability between ‘academic’ and ‘occupational’ provision. …
A key part of this work should be to map the silos which already exist – between higher education and further education, between academic and vocational learning and between different kinds of learners – in order to understand the potential progression pathways for new students….

The pathway to high level skills: a HEPI blog “The Government risks narrowing the path to higher level skills” by Dr Scott Kelly:

We are already seeing the negative impact of reducing the number of qualifications available at level 3. Earlier this month Ofqual warned about the scale of the disruption that will be caused by the DfE’s decision to remove funding from Applied General qualifications such as BTECs. As Ofqual noted, the number of students accessing HE with BTECs continues to grow, with the proportion accepted with A levels alone having fallen from 63 per cent in 2017 to around 60 per cent in 2019. Ofqual echo the concerns I raised in my report for HEPI on BTECs in 2017
As with previous attempts to overhaul the qualification system, up to and including the introduction of T levels, policy is likely to fail because it falls between two stalls – neither driven by the market nor based on sufficient industry engagement to ensure employers really value the qualifications on offer.

Students

The OfS have published a guide for students, representatives and students’ unions – Office for Students notifications. It explains how the OfS regulates universities, and specifically that the notifications process allows students, staff members and others to let us know about issues within a university. It emphases that the OfS doesn’t have a direct role in in dealing with individual complaints or with disputes between students and their university but they do want to hear about current issues on the aspects they do regulate on. Such as issues that might be affecting particular courses or groups of students (examples are given on pages 4-5) and recognising that students’ unions and representatives often have a great understanding of students’ experiences through their engagement and support

Wonkhe have a blog on the new guide Should students tell tales on their university or college? It states: What the guide doesn’t do is address in any meaningful way why a student, student representative or students’ union would bother. It doesn’t address what doing so might achieve, or what the ideal would be internally before getting this far. And nor does it reveal what OfS’ emphasis on it hides in the process – that the regulator doesn’t have much of a clue about what’s going on in universities.

The blog also explores the cost cutting reduction in OfS monitoring of universities and highlights how students sharing information on their university might be an opportunity for the OfS:

… during a pandemic in particular that leaves you in a bit of a monitoring hole – so to the rescue comes a beefing up of reportable events via students, student reps and students’ unions.
We’re not sampling. But we are “inviting” students and their reps to tell us stuff.
In practice, it is difficult to explain quite how flawed this monitoring sticking plaster really is. But I’m going to try.

The blog then carefully explains why it’s flawed and that it is unlikely students will use the OfS process en masse. Although perhaps they’ll complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator instead. This week they published their Operating Plans and we learnt that they received 2,604 complaints in 2020 (a 10% increase compared to 2019). Research Professional highlight:

Since student queries take some time before making their way to the OIA (complainants must first exhaust the internal arbitration options at their institutions), the numbers in today’s report will not include all those whose pandemic-related complaints about their universities were made last year.
Nonetheless, records have been broken. The OIA says it received 2,604 complaints in 2020—representing a 10 per cent increase on 2019 and marking the highest-ever number in a single year.

It is hard to imagine that this record will still stand when the numbers for 2021 are published next year. The OIA has reported record-breaking complaint numbers in each of the past three years, resulting in a cumulative increase in its caseload of nearly 60 per cent since 2017.

2019/20 student statistics

HESA released statistics on HE student enrolments and qualifications achieved in 2019/20. We’ve got some extracts for you.

Much of the news in forthcoming weeks will likely focus on the increase in first class honours that were awarded (see below) which it will be argued are linked to the no detriment policies most institutions implemented. Wonkhe have good coverage on this in the first part of this blog. They remind us to:

…remember this. Students obtain at least their average grade. To get a first, someone would need to have been averaging a first in the year so far. This is emphatically not a matter of handing out firsts like confetti – this is recognising work that has already been done. Nobody who got a first in 2019-20 did so without working at a first class level for at least the normal part of the academic year. Class of 2020, take your praise.

Grades Achieved

The percentage of students achieving a first class honours increased from 28% in 2018/19 to 35% in 2019/20. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic this year, many providers issued public statements that a ‘no detriment’ approach would be adopted when it came to assessment. This typically ensured that students would be awarded a final grade no lower than the most recent provider assessment of their attainment.
The share of students who received a lower second qualification classification fell by 4 – from 19% in 2018/19 to 15% in 2019/20.
A larger proportion of female students gained a first or upper second class honours than male students.
In a continuing trend, full-time students had a larger proportion of first or upper second class honours than part-time students.

Science Subjects

The percentage of qualifiers who gained qualifications in science subjects increased according to age group.
Among qualifiers obtaining a first degree, there was a 50% split between males qualifying in science subjects versus those qualifying in non-science subjects. For females, the proportion qualifying in science subjects was 41%.

Qualifications by level

There was a decrease in the number of qualifications obtained in all levels for the 2019/20 academic year, despite growth in the overall number of first year students in preceding years. Evidence suggests that some of this decrease is explained by significant numbers of qualifications awarded this year not being reported. This is likely to be linked to the impact on examinations and awards resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The impact is most noticeable on the number of part-time qualifications awarded (see figure 15 here). More details of the impact of COVID-19 on the data can be read in the notes.
The number of other undergraduate qualifications continued to decline, reflecting the decrease in first year other undergraduate student enrolment numbers.

Numbers

The total number of HE students in the UK in 2019/20 was 2,532,385, an increase of 3% from 2018/19. (2,697,380 when including HE students registered at FE providers.)
Undergraduate first degree courses account for the overall increase in number from 2018/19 to 2019/20
15% increase (37,605) in first year masters taught course enrolments from 2018/19 to 2019/20. Full time enrolments increased more than part time.
During the five year period 2015/16 to 2019/20, masters taught and first degree level course enrolments have seen year on year increases. All other postgraduate and undergraduate level courses have seen year on year decreases in enrolment numbers.
Full time postgraduates had the highest level of international students (see Figure 8 here)
Business and management attracted the highest number of students overall with 16% of all students enrolling in this subject
Among science subjects, subjects allied to medicine was the most popular for students, accounting for a quarter of all science subject enrolments

Protected Characteristics

The overall number of students with a known disability is increasing year on year both in enrolment numbers and in proportion of all students – from 2018/19 to 2019/20 the increase was 28,370
There were 122,755 students with a specific learning difficulty such as dyslexia, dyspraxia or AD(H)D in 2019/20 – this number accounts for 33% of all students with a known disability
A further 105,590 students reported a mental health condition, such as depression, schizophrenia or anxiety disorder.
The percentage of UK domiciled students that are White has decreased over the last five years, while the percentage that are Asian, Black and from Other ethnic backgrounds has increased
In terms of diversity within subjects, 82% of students studying veterinary sciences were female. For engineering and technology and computing, only 20% of students were female

Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of the OfS, said [and here is the kick on grade inflation, if you were waiting for it]:

This latest set of figures covers students graduating during the early stage of the pandemic. This was a period of intense disruption, with universities needing to move studies online very rapidly. As a result of this many universities implemented ‘no detriment’ policies, and these policies lie behind the significant increase in first class honours awarded to students graduating in 2020.
Before the pandemic, OfS analysis found evidence that unexplained grade inflation at our universities had begun to slow. However, there is more to be done to ensure that students, graduates and employers can maintain their confidence in the value of a degree and temporary changes in response to the pandemic should not bake in further grade inflation. This will require careful work which balances the importance of standards being maintained with recognition of – and response to – the exceptional pressures that students remain under this year.

Student Experience

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published the results of their experimental statistics on Coronavirus & HE students in England for January 2021, covering student’s life satisfaction, mental health and accommodation status.

Of those students who travelled to stay with family or friends over the winter break, 40% have since returned and 60% have not yet returned to their term-time address.
Of those students who provided complete travel information, 33% travelled to stay with family or friends over the winter break and 37% stayed in their accommodation; the remaining 30% were already living at their usual non-term address or family home, or in ‘other’ accommodation.
Almost two-thirds (63%) of students indicated that their well-being and mental health had worsened since the start of the autumn 2020 term.
A statistically significantly higher number (63%) of students reported a worsening in their well-being and mental health, compared with 57% reporting the same in the previous student survey (20 to 25 November 2020).
Average life satisfaction scores of students decreased by 9% from 5.3 to 4.8 out of 10, between 20 to 25 November 2020 and 8 to 18 January 2021.
A greater proportion of students reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their academic experience since the start of the autumn term (37%), compared with 29% reporting the same at the end of November 2020 (20 to 25 November 2020).

The ONS provide some context:

The most recent data collected from the Student COVID-19 Insights Survey (SCIS) show a further decrease in students’ average life satisfaction scores, with almost two-thirds of students reporting a worsening of their mental health and well-being.
These numbers are not surprising considering the new lockdown measures in place and the fact that many students have not yet returned to their university town or city. This is also reflected in the academic experience scores, with the number of students reporting dissatisfaction showing an increase since the last report.

Specifically on dissatisfaction:

A greater proportion of students reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their academic experience since the start of the autumn term (37%), than the 29% reporting the same at the end of November 2020 (20 to 25 November 2020). Of those who were dissatisfied with their academic experience, the most common reasons were learning delivery (75%) and quality of learning (71%).
Over half (56%) of students reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their social experience since the start of the autumn term. The most common given reasons that students were dissatisfied with their social experience were limited opportunities to meet other students (86%) and limited opportunities for social or recreational activity (85%).

Parliamentary Questions

Health care

Healthcare students on placement are confirmed as eligible for priority access to the vaccine.
Still no answer on decisions re: nurses out of pocket due to course extensions. Which is odd because the Universities Minister has already said they will not have to pay additional tuition fees: Health Education England is working locally with each higher education provider so that placements are available and is supporting healthcare students to ensure that as many as possible graduate on time.

Institutions should not charge nursing students additional tuition fees in circumstances where they need more study time to complete their course as result of undertaking a paid placement in the NHS, or as result of needing to undertake clinical placements over an extended period.

Discussing ELQ exemption for paramedic science
Retaining physiotherapists within NHS

Regulatory

Whether the Office for Students has fulfilled its four primary regulatory objectives in response to the covid-19 pandemic.
The likelihood of enforcement action under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 against universities in respect of potential non-compliance with the general ongoing conditions of registration due to the covid-19 pandemic.
Improving the external oversight of universities in the handling of cases of sexual misconduct.

Students

Parliamentary Question: The Government ‘guidance’ to universities on accepting students unable to obtain functional skills qualifications during the covid-19 lockdown announced in January 2021.
[The phrasing belies the intent in this one!] How many students have graduated with a degree in video games in each year since 2010.
No detriment policies for 2021
The first students funded through Turing are intended to take up their international placements from September 2021.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us at policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Other news

Budget 2021: You can read the Russell Group’s submission to the 2021 budget here.

Contract cheating: Previous Universities Minister Chris Skidmore intends to try his luck by presenting a Ten Minute Rule Bill aiming to make essay mills illegal, including advertising them, in the UK. Skidmore is concerned that the pressures of pandemic learning and being physically distanced from a student’s academic community and usual resources may create vulnerabilities that contract cheating services thrive upon. He has called on the sector to contribute evidence and examples for his Bill presentation. He writes: This bill won’t be the immediate end to essay mills, but it can be the start of a legislative process that can and does influence government to take action. By making the collective case against essay mills, at the very least I hope this is one legislative effort the sector can welcome. For an explanation of the Ten minute Rule Bill see last week’s policy update (page 18) or Chris provides a succinct explanation: the canary in the legislative coalmine. Research Professional cover the story.

Appeals and academic judgement– there’s a HEPI blog on this, linked to the consultations on the new proposals for A levels and vocational qualifications, which close on 29^th January.

Careers Resourcing: The Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services publishes a report on resourcing higher education careers services. Wonkhe say: More than 90% of careers services experienced a drop in income, related to the inability to host careers fairs. The majority of services have reported a rise in demand from students, with none experiencing a decrease.

Wellbeing: The Education Policy Institute and the Prince’s Trust has published a report on the drop in girls well being during adolescence. While the wellbeing of all young people (Gen Z) declines by the end of their teenage years, there is a strong gender divide within this: girls see far lower levels of wellbeing and self-esteem than boys – driven by a sharp fall of both during mid-adolescence. Depressive symptoms rise among both boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 17 but they increase more markedly for girls. For a summary of the paper including which factors have an impact on the mental health and wellbeing of Generation Z contact us.

Also out this week is the Children’s Commissioner for England’s fourth annual report on the state of children’s mental health services in England. Dods tell us it finds that, while there has been an expansion of children’s mental health services over the past four years, such was the poor starting point that services are still nowhere near meeting the needs of many hundreds of thousands of children. With 1 in 6 children estimated to have a probable mental health condition, the Children’s Commissioner calls for a major recovery programme for including an NHS-funded counsellor is every school in England and online wellbeing support.

Young employment: The Office for National Statistics released the latest Labour Market Overview on young employment.

The number of 16-24 year olds employed stands at 3,561,077 . This has fallen by 24,487 on the last quarter and by 203,386 on last year.
The number of 16-24 year olds unemployed stands at 596,400, up 15,403 on the previous quarter, up 114,662 on the previous year.
The number of 16-24 year olds economically inactive stands at 2,699,569, a decrease of 43,662 on the previous quarter, but up 53,514 on the previous year. This is an economic inactivity rate of 9.4%, down 0.6 ppts on previous quarter but up 1.0 ppt on previous year.
The number of 16-24 year olds claiming unemployment related benefits is 515,905. This is an increase of 2,730 or 0.5% in the last quarter and 281,413 or 120% on the previous year.

Student Accommodation: The House of Commons Library has published Coronavirus: Student accommodation issues to brief MPs on the key points prior to participation in parliamentary business. The blurb: Compliance with coronavirus restrictions has meant many students haven’t been able to live in their term-time accommodation for significant periods and many have had a poorer experience at university than expected due to Covid outbreaks and restrictions. This has led to students demanding rent refunds or discounts. How have universities, other accommodation providers and the Government responded to this?

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.

Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

November 23, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 20th November 2020

international, open access, PG research, Research Ethics, Student Engagement, student research jforster

w/e 20 November 2020

This week has been all about Government intervention in HE. The news has been non-stop so we’ve sectioned some of the biggest debates into separate documents which are linked to within the main text. Fear not, for our skim readers the basics on each debate are still covered in the main update.

Get comfortable, adjust your posture, the Government seems determined to tick all the boxes on their Santa wish list before the holidays (and the reality of post-Brexit Britain).

Quality: Lower value courses

Defining value for money has been a strong theme for government for the last few years. As has how the government will address their perception (shared enthusiastically by sections of the media) that the sector is riddled with “mickey mouse” “rip-off courses”. We have discussed the challenges of measuring quality mainly by reference to salary many times in our updates. And you will also have noticed (and we have pointed out regularly) that the government have become fixated this year on employment measures alongside continuation as the only useful metrics. As you know, they are encouraging the OfS to sideline the NSS.

So this week has seen some major developments –and you will not now be surprised by the direction…..

… or (spoiler alert) the pattern….

Wonkhe (Mon):

In late February, Universities UK President Julia Buckingham used a comment piece in The Telegraph to trail a speech on a new tool to measure the value of individual subjects beyond just graduate earnings, including the benefit of students as well as to wider society and the economy – all framed as a kind of alternative Teaching Excellence Framework.
Now nine months on it looks like the results of that work are set to be published this week, with the same paper reporting this morning that Vice Chancellors are to “launch a crack down” on “low quality” degrees in a new charter aimed at ensuring institutions take a “consistent and transparent approach” to identifying and improving low value courses. Proposals will even consider options for a return (in England) to “external assurance or independent review”. If the events of last week over admissions are anything to go by, DfE will likely publish its own competing plan on value by the end of Friday.

The UUK approach to quality concerns

On Monday Universities UK announced an advisory group were developing a charter to ensure universities (England only) take a consistent and transparent approach on potential low-value/quality courses. The UUK press release explains the rationale: Institutions already monitor and review their courses regularly and have robust processes in place to uphold quality and standards. Assessing value however is challenging, can be subjective and may involve areas such as graduate career satisfaction or employment outcomes many years after graduation.

The terms of reference for the charter are here. The charter advisory group will focus on:

Demonstrating the sector’s commitment to consistency and transparency in processes to tackle low value courses through the publication of a Statement of Intent, agreed by universities.
Highlighting best practice where universities are already identifying low value or low quality courses, including the use of metrics, and taking rapid action to address issues.
Guidance will be published which universities are expected to follow
Longer term universities will also consider options for external assurance or independent review to make their processes stronger as part of an ongoing charter.

Professor Julia Buckingham, President of Universities UK and Chair of the advisory group stated: The overwhelming majority of courses are high quality and offer good value for students, but we want to address concerns that some could deliver more for students, taxpayers, and employers…The public needs full confidence in the value and quality of a UK university degree and the charter will demonstrate universities’ commitment to constant improvement.”

And by mid week – the somewhat more challenging OfS approach

Just as with admissions UUK were being proactive and trying to address the concerns through self-management. However, on Tuesday the OfS finally announced their (delayed) consultation on regulating quality and standards which they hope will strengthen the English higher education sector and its international reputation.

The proposals are to set baseline requirements for quality and standards including numerical baselines for providers to meet on student outcomes.

Providers will be assessed on absolute performance in relation to the baseline. It applies to all types of students whatever, wherever and however they study. The proposed minimum numerical standards will apply for continuation, completion and employment (at professional level) and they will be absolute numbers that apply to all providers and all subjects and groups of students including familiar splits for full and part time, mature students, ethnicity, gender, disadvantaged background. They will not be benchmarked or adjusted for demographics.

Sector-recognised standards for degree classification will also become baselines. Table 1 on page 3 sets out the proposed definitions.

The OfS is also clarifying the data they will use, the indicators and approach for risk-based monitoring and their approach to intervention. They state this clarity will support them to better anticipate risks to quality and standards and rebalance their approach.

The executive summary is a useful read and they have a guide to the changes.

The OfS reassure that the consultation is taking place at an early stage of policy development and make encouraging noises about listening to providers. We’ll see.

The first and most obvious concern is about the impact of the numerical standards on universities with high numbers of WP students. This ominous section caught our eye:

We set a minimum baseline requirement for quality, which includes a minimum level for student outcomes. Our intention in doing so is to be clear that all students are entitled to the same minimum level of quality. We also expect higher education providers to improve access to higher education for the most underrepresented groups and to reduce the gaps between the outcomes achieved for these students and the outcomes achieved for other groups. We do not accept that students from underrepresented groups should be expected to accept lower quality, including weaker outcomes, than other students. We therefore do not bake their disadvantage into the regulatory system by setting lower minimum requirements for providers that typically recruit these types of students.

Let’s hope they’re listening to Johnny Rich (Twitter).

The other obvious challenge is about regulatory and bureaucratic burden. There is a clear tension between the aim to reduce bureaucracy and the desire for more and more data, more reportable events, more contextual data indicators to be reported etc. They have a weird argument that more burden in the short term means less burden in the long term because they can make their response proportionate with more data, but we are not sure that anyone will buy that!

The Guardian cover the story in Universities may face sanctions if they fail most disadvantaged and this Wonkhe blog is well worth reading: the B3 bear hunts down Mickey Mouse.

Keen beans will also want to delve into the content that Wonkhe also have on the topic:

The OfS blog on Wonkhe – OfS will tackle pockets of low quality higher education provision – worth reading for the first comment on the article which points out that the proposals will discourage providers from taking disadvantaged students, particularly those who might have a lower chance of success.
The UUK blog announcing the charter (before OfS announced the consultation). Again read the comments!
A Wonkhe blog highlighting why its wise to define the ‘low quality’ course

Wonkhe also review two papers on the topic:

The Social Market Foundation has released a briefing paper on evaluating quality in higher education. The think tank provides an overview of the current quality assessment system, how well it works, and covers the main criticisms put against it. It argues that if the government wishes to raise the general quality of higher education in the UK, it must determine the purpose of HE, identify its intended audience, understand the limitations of quality assessment, and decide how important quality assessment is and then fund it appropriately. You can read the full briefing paper here.
City AM has an opinion piece from the SMF’s [Social Market Foundation] chief economist on how answering the question of what universities are for will go a long way to fixing much of what troubles them.

Commenting on the OfS consultation and proposals, Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of the OfS, said:

These proposals strengthen our ability to intervene where we have concerns. We have previously been clear that we are determined to stamp out any pockets of low quality, and these proposals would not only raise the bar in terms of the quality overall, but would enable us to monitor quality at a subject level, as well as taking into account issues which might be affecting students from particular groups.
We are also making it clear that we do not accept that expectations should be lowered for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. All students are entitled to the same minimum level of quality and outcomes, and it would be untenable to have a regulatory system which allowed universities to recruit students from underrepresented groups but then set lower expectations for their success.
Our plans – and the more detailed proposals we envisage setting out in 2021 subject to consideration of responses to this consultation – would allow the OfS to continue to investigate any concerns we have about quality and standards. We will be able to use our full range of powers if we consider that any of our registration conditions are breached.
We remain extremely mindful of the need to ensure proportionate regulatory burden. Universities and other higher education providers offering high quality higher education across the board will find that our proposed approach to quality places minimal regulatory burden on them.

The consultation also clarifies the inter-relationship between all this and the TEF. See Annex D – there are no questions associated with this. However, it is ominous again:

“Annex C contains proposals for the way in which weak TEF outcomes for a provider would result in additional scrutiny of that provider’s ongoing compliance with the minimum baseline requirements contained in the B conditions”.

It does too – take a look.

We expect to consult on our future approach to the TEF in due course…..
The way we structure our definitions of ‘quality’ and ‘standards’ for the purposes of setting baseline requirements (see Annex A) needs to be coherent with the components assessed by the TEF above that baseline. This is important because providers need to be clear about what is required to satisfy the baseline requirements in the B conditions, and then the performance above this that would lead to particular TEF awards.
The way we use data to construct indicators, and the indicators that we choose to use for baseline regulation and TEF assessment, needs to be consistent, or inconsistencies explained. The indicators we propose to use in the assessment of condition B3 (see Annex B) cover similar outcomes as have – to date – been measured through the TEF. To ensure the coherence and proportionality of our regulatory activities, and subject to further consultation on both our approach to condition B3 and to the TEF, we intend to align the uses and definitions of the measures within our assessments of condition B3 and TEF, to the extent that this is appropriate and practical (for example, TEF only relates to undergraduate provision, whereas our assessment of condition B3 covers both undergraduate and postgraduate courses).
The consequences of weak performance in relation to the B conditions, or in a TEF assessment, need to create incentives for improvement for providers that are below the minimum baseline or performing weakly in TEF.

Post Qualification Admissions (PQA)

So it never rains but it pours… last Friday after the UUK and UCAS recommendations on admissions that we covered in our update, the Secretary of State weighed in.

Gavin Williamson announced the DfE would review the admissions processes and potentially move to a post qualification admissions(PQA) system with students only receiving offers after their exam results. The press release focuses on the unfairness of the predicted grade inaccuracies which can work against high achievers from disadvantaged backgrounds whose grades are more likely to be under-predicted…Disadvantaged students are more likely to ‘under-match’ and enter courses below their ability than their advantaged peers. Under-matched students are then more likely to drop out of university, get a lower-class degree and earn less in employment.

Unconditional offers were also mentioned, which the Government maintains are encouraging students to accept offers that may not be in their best interest.

Williamson stated: By using predicted grades it is limiting the aspirations of students before they know what they can achieve…We need to explore how to change a system which breeds low aspiration and unfairness.

The Government committed to consult on proposals for change, including reviewing whether personal statements contribute to the unfairness. Any future change to the admissions system will not affect 2021 entrants although the Government aims to deliver any reform before the end of the current parliament. UUK had recommended no change before 2022/23 admissions at the earliest.

On Monday Williamson issued a short written ministerial statement (WMS). It contained similar material: The current system lacks transparency…In recent years we have also seen the emergence of undesirable admissions practices, such as the mass use of unconditional offers…a Post Qualification Admissions system [would] support social mobility and remove the complexity and undesirable practices of the current system.

In addition, it felt the educational disruption precipitated by the pandemic could also have been mitigated by a different admissions system:We know, due to the pandemic, that students have experienced considerable disruption to their education this year. We believe that the unique set of circumstances students faced could have been better dealt with by a fairer higher education admissions system.

The WMS also references the Sutton Trust’s October briefing on PQA which contains a graduate poll with 66% of graduate in favour of removing predicted grades and basing decisions on actual results – 13% felt the change would actually be less fair.

The elephant in the room here is that disadvantaged students may have greater potential than they demonstrate in exams. Higher class sizes, less individual support, disruptive classroom environments, schools with poorer performance and overall outcomes, time zapping part time, poorer nutrition, less parental experience and support all play a part in achievement and a student’s final exam grade. Some of these students may have been overpredicted grades by a teacher who recognised their potential, under the current system they would have been able to access higher tariff opportunities. Overprediction might even have been a motivator to stretch themselves further overcoming the disadvantage barriers. The same Sutton Trust report that the Government quote also states this:

A change to a post-qualification system would likely influence university applicants’ choices in different ways. Just over 1 in 5 (21%) of those who achieved final grades higher than their predicted grades said they would have applied to higher tariff institutions if they knew their final grades before applying, while 29% who performed worse than their predictions reported they would have applied for institutions with lower entry requirements.

Successive Universities Ministers since Sam Gyimah have supported the agenda to get high performing disadvantaged young people into ‘high status’ institutions. However, as the Sutton Trust demonstrate above it isn’t that simple and there will be disadvantaged winners and losers.

The Sutton Trust have a good diagram highlighting the differences between the current system and two potential alternatives. Last week UUK came out in favour of PQO (post qualification offers) the Government is currently favouring PQA.

Over here we have the sector’s reaction and statements on the Government’s announcement and there are other engaging blogs and snippets for those who are most interested in this topic to explore.

No. 10

Towards the end of last week the news that several of the PM’s special advisors were leaving No. 10 captured the nation’s interest but what ripple effect might it have on HE? Wonkhe have a few things to say on the matter:

The big “reset”….means No.10 could be in the market for new takes on domestic policy agendas…it’s been reported that Tory MP and university sceptic Neil O’Brien is to chair the Prime Minister’s Policy Board [now confirmed]. It’s an unpredictable combination of circumstances, but probably doesn’t spell good news for higher education.
A ministerial reshuffle is being readied for the new year too, and the unpopular Gavin Williamson looks particularly vulnerable after a series of blunders – not least the summer examnishambles. But be careful what you wish for: The Times speculated over the weekend that Michael Gove could make a dramatic comeback to the education brief for 2021.

With so much emphasis on FE and Skills one does wonder what would happen to this agenda and the White Paper if Williamson is shuffled elsewhere.

O’Brien writes in Conservative Home: One of the great arts in politics is to see the problems and the big choices coming, so that you can solve them before the ship starts sinking.

On HE O’Brien writes:There’s a long-expected decision to take on universities. Do we keep the current system? Or build up technical education, and try to reduce the number of students on low value university courses which lead to low earnings while consuming lots of taxpayer subsidy? He doesn’t state his opinion but the questions are bang on the Conservative party line.

Finally Wonkhe tell us that the Politico London Playbook is reporting that MPs Jonathan Gullis, David Johnston, and Miriam Cates are in the running to lead a new Number 10 “task force” on the education and skills agenda.

Degree Classification Analysis

Coincidence in a week focussing on quality? Maybe. The delayed analysis of degree outcomes for 2018-19 from the OfS came out this week too.

You will recall the consternation caused by the last analysis (July 2019 which basically said that any achievement not explained by prior attainment was “unexplained”. Here they add on 2018-19 data. Expect unhelpful press comment.

Our new analysis finds that in 2018-19, across the 147 providers considered, 14.3 percentage points of first class degree2 attainment change since 2010-11 are unexplained3 by changes in the graduate population. This is an increase of 0.4 percentage points from the unexplained attainment in 2017-18, which is the smallest increase observed since 2010-11.
In respect of both first and upper second class degrees combined and first class degrees alone, the 2018-19 provider-level comparison shows:
- Most providers exhibited unexplained attainment significantly above the 2010-11 sector mean attainment.
- All providers had more unexplained attainment in 2018-19 than in 2010-11.

The OfS have a blog post written by Nick Holland, Competition and Registration Manager, discussing their findings and ‘why grade inflation matters’.

Headline findings:

5% of students included in the analysis received a first-class honours degree in 2018/19
Of these, OfS finds that 14.3 percent are unexplained when compared to attainment in 2010/11 (an increase of 0.4% on 2017/18 data)
In 2010/11 15.7% of students received a first – there have since been year-on-year increases in the proportion of firsts award, and the number unexplained
Sector-wide data shows students with the highest A-level results are most likely to gain a first-class degree
Students entering university with A-level (or equivalent) grades below DDD were almost four times as likely to receive a first-class degree in 2018/19 as their counterparts in 2010/11
The analysis identified large variations between providers, but an on-average levelling out of attainment between 2017/18 and 2018/19
The year-on-year change in first-class degreed attainment for the sector between 2017/18 and 2018/19 was 0.3%
The greatest fluctuation in year-on-year attainment changes occurred in providers with small numbers

Potential explanations for attainment changes:

For upper second and first class degrees combined, the highest attaining graduates for the additional contextual variable groups were white, non-disabled women from POLAR4 quintile 5 areas
For first class degrees alone, the highest attaining graduates for the additional contextual variable groups were white, non-disabled women from POLAR4 quintile 4 areas
Prior to 2010, the proportion of qualifiers achieving the highest A-Level grades had been increasing and it is unclear whether this was due to grade inflation or an increase in ability
While some of the reported unexplained attainment could be explained by the change in A-Level grading policy, there is still strong evidence of significant unexplained sector attainment increases between 2010-11 and 2018-19

Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students said:

‘This data shows that the increase in the proportion of first class degrees awarded in 2018-19 has slowed compared to previous years, with a small increase from last year in the percentage of first class degrees which cannot be explained by other factors. While this may indicate that the brakes have been applied, it is clear that grade inflation remains a significant and pressing issue in English higher education.
‘Overall, this data represents a mixed picture. It may well be that factors we don’t account for in our modelling, including improved teaching and learning, have driven some of the increase that we have seen in recent years. There are also some striking changes at some of those universities which had previously awarded high proportions of firsts, although there is increased evidence of an unexplained increase in firsts at 73 per cent of universities.
‘Unexplained grade inflation risks undermining public confidence in higher education, and devaluing the hard work of students. Degrees must stand the test of time, which is why the OfS will continue to address this issue at both a sector-wide and individual university level.
‘The OfS launched a consultation this week with proposals which will help us to strengthen our ability to regulate quality and standards. These proposals, if taken forward following the consultation process, would let us intervene where evidence suggests that the standards set and recognised by the sector are not being met in practice by an individual university, college or other higher education provider.
‘It is correct to say that a permanent solution will require continuing collective action from universities over a period of time. Ultimately though, universities are individually accountable for meeting the OfS’s regulatory requirements in this area. Where we have concerns about unexplained grade inflation at any particular university or college, we are prepared to intervene to protect the integrity of the degree awarding system for all students.’

Wonkhe: David Kernohan complicates things a little, in a good way. And there’s lots more in the Wonkhe archive on the issue.

Research

Wonkhe and Research Professional supply lots of this week’s updates:

R&D: An influential taskforce of university and business leaders has asked the government to put R&D firstin a revised industrial strategy to help the UK recover from Covid-19. (Research Professional.)
ARPA: the departure of Dominic Cummings, the chief adviser to the prime minister, adds to doubts over the UK Arpa. (Research Professional.)
What does the next US President mean for science and research? (Research Professional.)
Bullying: UKRI has announced the establishment of a Forum for Tackling Bullying and Harassment in Research and Innovation, bringing together research funders, representative bodies, scholarly societies, and the Office for Students. The new group will meet quarterly and summaries of work will be published.
UKRI and the US National Institute for Standards and Technology have signed a memorandum of understanding, with plans to work closely together in areas of research, research translation and commercialisation. (Wonkhe)

Digital Research Community: Wonkhe report that Jisc launched a digital research community last week, which they say will be exploring how technology and innovation can help improve current research practices.

One of the focus points of the new research community will be how digital technologies can be better deployed in response to the fast-changing research sector. This is part of a wider response to engagement with those working in research to explore issues around the use of technology, and to support the sector in responding to  such things as the recent UK Government’s R&D roadmap, National Data Strategy, UKRI’s corporate plan and the announcement of a new research funding agency.

It will provide a space for researchers, research leaders, research managers and other professionals in the field to:

Consider where technology solutions might alleviate concerns and support objectives, and the culture, skills and processes needed for effective implementation of those solutions
Share technology innovation and good practice, demonstrating the ‘art of the possible’
Unite disciplines, mission groups and geography
Encourage collaboration and seek unified approaches

The group are due to meet for the first time in December. The first output from the group will be a webinar, which will present priorities and potential activities for the community – you can sign up to it here.

PGRs: In a week of non-stop big HE sector news the PhD extensions calls and debate has made a surprising volume of noise to also be prominent.

Wonkhe report on the University and College Union’s open letter signed by more 770 academics and researchers, criticising the review released by UK Research and Innovation on 11 November, which rejected calls to grant extensions to PhD students affected by the pandemic. The letter’s signatories say that without additional support, inequalities within the research community will be worsened and entrenched. The Guardian covers Monday’s open letter to UKRI calling for the body to rethink its position on PhD extensions. (Wonkhe)

The latest UKRI announcements on support for postgraduate research students – a blog asking why it’s taken so long to let them down. (Wonkhe)
The BBC reports that white applicants are offered PhD places at a higher rate than black, Asian and other ethnic minority candidates, according to data obtained through a freedom of information request. (Wonkhe)

PTES: AdvanceHE are report the latest Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) shows positive trends from students, despite the challenges of 2020.

40,000 students from 69 institutions took part in PTES before and during the national lockdown and within the context of recent HE staff strikes.

79% of postgraduates were satisfied with their taught experience compared with 82% in 2019
Overall satisfaction declined by up to six percent after lockdown
29% of taught postgraduates did not feel their course ran smoothly in 2020
32% of taught postgraduates definitely agreed they were encouraged to be involved in decisions about the course
Lockdown was mentioned in a “significant minority” of negative comments. Those who referenced lockdown cited ‘organisation’ (14%), ‘resources’ (14%) and ‘teaching’ (12%) as their main areas of concern
Overall, lockdown appears to have been more impactful on PGT students than PGR students or undergraduates surveyed this year, with particular cohorts being hit the hardest:
- Students who had already experienced disruptions (e.g. through strikes earlier in 2020)
- Students with caring and work commitments
- Students who declared a disability
- Students with disciplines relying on specialist resources (such as creative arts or architecture)

Research Parliamentary Questions

How the Government will calculate the funding gap in the event that the UK does not participate in EU research projects after the transition period.
What positive steps UKRI has taken to increase diversity in the peer review processes and advisory groups.
If the Government will bring forward proposals to enable UKRI to prolong funding for research students unable to undertake face-to-face interviews as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

Access & Participation

The Social Mobility Commission published Changing gears – Understanding downward social mobility.

So far policy-makers have focused on helping people to experience upward mobility, ignoring the fact that others have to move down. This was not such an issue while professional and managerial jobs were still expanding, as there was more room at the top. But this is no longer the case. Given the many challenges we face due to the coronavirus pandemic, it is vital to understand why and how individuals experience downward mobility, and what, if any, barriers they face.

The report aims to fill the gaps in knowledge on the prevalence, nature and consequences of downward mobility. It explores who is more likely to be downwardly mobile and differentiates between involuntary downward mobility where people slip down the ladder and voluntary downward mobility where people are able to choose to take a ‘lower’ occupation. The report only considers occupational downward mobility, not income or wealth.

During 2014-18 21% of men and 24% of women (aged 30-59) experienced downward mobility, this in in line with other countries. 80% remained at the lower level 5 years later.
Downward mobility is highest among women with several children, ethnic minority groups from outside the UK and individuals with lower educational qualifications.
Caring responsibilities – Having more children increases the chances of experiencing downward mobility for women but has only a small effect for men
Ethnicity – Some BAME groups, especially those born outside the UK, are much more likely to experience downward mobility, even after accounting for their educational qualifications and other individual characteristics
Men and women with degrees are 50–60% less likely to be downwardly mobile, regardless of their skills in early life. This shows that talented people from less privileged backgrounds who do not or cannot access higher education are more likely to experience downward mobility than people from privileged backgrounds, who perhaps demonstrate less skill in earlier life, but can access the higher education opportunities that matter when accessing the job market.
Downward mobility is highest for children of those working in occupations that have tended to become more graduate-led over time (such as nursing, policing, fire or the military). This means that their children may not have been able to access similar occupations to their parents, without going into higher education. People experiencing downward mobility were also more likely to end up in certain sectors – including the police and military – which suggests that that there are knock-on consequences across generations.
It wasn’t possible to quantify the proportion of individuals who experience voluntary or involuntary downward mobility. However, the factors associated with ‘unfair’ involuntary downward mobility, such as access to educational opportunities, opportunity hoarding, racial discrimination, caring responsibilities or poverty, are consistent with those limiting upward social mobility.

More detail on the impact of education as an insulator.

Those with degrees have a 15% chance of experiencing downward mobility, as compared with about 30% for those with GCSEs or below. Higher degree classifications, and studying subjects like medicine, teaching or science, further reduce the chances of downward mobility.

… achieving any formal qualification results in a much lower chance of downward mobility (20%). This suggests that the qualification itself, and not just academic ability, is one of the key factors influencing downward mobility. This reflects the importance that employers attach to degree level qualifications when selecting candidates for higher occupational roles; using degrees to distinguish job-applicants potentially excludes those with high potential but lower educational qualifications.

Our research showed a range of ways in which education helped to support people, providing benefits beyond the opportunities afforded by higher levels of qualification. Education, especially higher and further education, provided confidence, soft skills and a sense of belonging in the workplace. Those who had a higher level of education also tended to approach life’s set-backs with greater confidence and resilience. This was notable when we discussed career challenges. Those with a higher level of educational attainment were more able to think strategically in terms of alternatives that might be open to them. They had a broad range of skills that they were able to draw upon beyond their qualification. There was a sense that education provided an endorsement of their skills and capabilities, enabling them to approach opportunities with confidence.

However, a degree wasn’t found to insulate against the influence of other life events:

degree-educated professional women had been driven to considering lower-status roles by the stressful reality of combining demanding and inflexible professional roles with parenthood.
In another example, a working-class graduate from a rural location had felt that she did not fit in well with colleagues in a graduate job in London, and soon returned home to take up a lower-status job

Impact of educationally supportive home environment

Researchers have highlighted the role of opportunity hoarding in restricting social mobility, demonstrating the higher educational outcomes for middle-class children, even where early ability is on a par with their peers in routine or manual occupations. The research points to some privileged parents having a high level of involvement with their children’s educational achievement, providing intensive support in order to hothouse their children academically, for example by nurturing cognitive and soft skills during childhood.
Many participants in the research sample for this report had had the opposite experience as children, with a lack of attention and oversight of their progress at school, from either parents or teachers. At school, many recalled that they hadn’t been singled out as high achievers, nor had they been targeted as requiring extra support. Either of these labels, they felt, could have resulted in a greater interest in their progress, but the fact that they had not stood out meant that they had gone ‘under the radar’ and been allowed to drift into achieving below their potential. This lack of interest had left them feeling disconnected from school achievement, and gave them a sense that they could have achieved more, given the right support and guidance.

If you are interested in this topic the report is an easy read and there is wider content than the elements outlined above.

TASO: Wonkhe report that Independent evaluation hub Transforming Access and Student Outcomes (TASO) has published a report on the lack of evidence supporting the retention and attainment of disadvantaged and underrepresented students in higher education. Based on a review conducted by Coventry University and the Bridge Group, the report recommends research be carried out to establish causal links between action and outcome, with greater attention paid to understanding effects in a more granular and intersectional way.

Parliamentary Questions

Improving access to HE for care experienced students.
Whether the overall funding for pupil premium has been increased in line with the increase in the number of pupils who are eligible for free school meals.
£39.7 million disabled students premium 2020/21.

International

Wonkhe shared lots of content on international matters this week:

The Institute of International Education has released a recruitment survey that suggests that new international student enrolment in the US (and on US provider online courses) has decreased by a startling 43% between autumn 2019 and autumn 2020.
This HEPI blog has a piece asking why universities are so secretive about their reliance on international student recruitment agents.
The SRHE blog has a piece from two researchers on approaches to teaching international students in the UK.
UCAS evidence shows there is still demand from the EU for UK universities– but students need encouragement to study in post-Brexit Britain.

Student Intention (by Wonkhe)

Ahead of anticipated January starts, global polling by IDP Connect of more than 5,000 international applicants, offer holders and students, of whom 884 intend to study in the UK, finds that 80 per cent intend to start their studies as planned – a 21 percentage point increase since the first instalment of the International Student Crossroads research, which took place in April 2020.
The research, which is supported by Universities UK International, also finds an increase in willingness to begin study online with an expected transition to face to face teaching. However, 44 per cent of those polled say they would tolerate online learning for only three months before expecting to transition. 92 per cent say they would be willing to undertake a period of quarantine before beginning their studies, up from 77 per cent in the June 2020 instalment of the research.
The UK does not fare especially well in international applicants’ comparative assessment of the national response to coronavirus (rated 5.7 out of 10), the safety of citizens and visitors (rated 6.4 out of 10), or the welfare of international students (rated 6.3 out of 10), lagging behind Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but scoring ahead of the USA.

International Perceptions: The All-Party Parliamentary University Group have published International student perceptions & why the UK needs to build more destination loyalty. There are several nice colourful charts.

Students from different markets should be approached in tailored ways that meet their specific needs. The research shows that Chinese students are risk averse – as a sector we can respect and support their needs by facilitating online studies and communicating frequent COVID-related updates. For Indian students, the emphasis should be on post-study work opportunities.
As the higher education landscape becomes increasingly competitive, the focus should be on promoting the UK to international students as a desirable, holistic destination. More destination loyalty is urgently needed in key target markets. This is to ensure that prospective international students are driven not only by prestigious institutions, but by the UK as a destination in itself.
The UK can do more to change international student perceptions. Efforts to key markets should focus on aspects such as student safety (particularly related to COVID), international student welfare (testimonials by international students currently in the UK are powerful) and what the UK is doing to effectively respond to the pandemic.
The blog suggests the UK government’s new immigration graduate route has already had positive effects on recruitment.

Future of post-16 Education

In a week of relentless news it would be easy to overlook the Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s report on the future of England’s post-16 education system. While the report wasn’t such a headline grabber it is significant because its deals with the Government’s vision to reshape and rebalance the post compulsory education sector. Make no mistake this report is all about FE, reshaping and supporting FE, yet the themes are noteworthy for the stability of the HE sector. The document is bold and frank, it names the (potential) competition between FE and HE created by the Government’s technical education agenda, alongside references to serving the other 50% of the population who do not access HE, and the intention to rebalance funding across the post-16 sector.

The (independent) Commission was formed to answer these questions – what do we want and need from colleges from 2030 onwards, and how do we get there? The report is well researched with an impressive range of collaborators. While it feels it has a weight behind it at this stage it is only a series of recommendations to Government. The recommendations however do track the Government’s headline intent and the Skills White Paper is imminent.

The report itself needed a deeper delve into the implications and you can read our analysis here. It centres around the concept of a College place-based network in which employers are heavily invested and skills needs agreed and addressed. The skills and higher technical agenda, the relationship, support, collaboration and competition between local institutions (FE & HE), adult retraining, the unspoken Government agenda to rebalance numbers going into HE and reprioritisation of the status of the graduate degree route (and perhaps, therefore, the funding behind it all) all feature. Read more here.

Research Professional have a rather decent interpretation of elements of the report here. Their write-up is particularly good at drawing out where the Commission has tried to find solutions to reduce potential competition between HE and FE.

Lord Blunkett gives his take on the report’s intent in The Times. On competition he states: Lifelong learning is complementary to higher education, which it embraces. Further and higher education working collaboratively will help to reach more people, deliver more impact and improve value for money.

However, his intent is less clear when he comments: Quality teaching equals quality learning, and further education must be underpinned by a commitment to excellence for students (unlike universities, where expertise is underpinned by research).

Student Fees petition – no blanket refund

Last week we highlighted that the Petition Committee had scheduled a debate on all five student fee related petitions. You can read the debate in full here or a summary here.

Only a handful of MPs attended the debate although those that did speak made a range of informed points. Michelle Donelan represented the Government to make it clear there would be no change. No blanket refunds and students need to pursue their own cases individually through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have a really insightful analysis on the topic – Who would benefit from reimbursing tuition fees?

The total cost to universities of refunding fees…for a whole year would be around £10 billion if the policy applied only to full-time undergraduates domiciled in England. Including all fee-paying students – which includes students from other home nations, international students, part-time students, and those studying for other degrees – would nearly double the amount to be reimbursed. [Almost half total university income in 2018/19!]
Among undergraduate students domiciled in England, this kind of reimbursement of tuition fees would primarily benefit the small minority of students who pay their tuition fees out-of-pocket, and those who go on to have high earnings after they have graduated. Only the roughly 10% of students (or their parents) who pay tuition fees directly would receive any immediate pay-out. All others will have taken out the full government-backed loan to cover their fees, so reimbursement would merely lower their student loan balance.
This change to the student loan balance only matters for high-earning graduates. The reason is that mandatory repayments only depend on graduates’ earnings, and all remaining student loan balances are written off 30 years after graduates start repaying. Lower-earning graduates will not repay their loans within 30 years whether or not tuition fees are reimbursed, so their repayments would be the same… Borrowers in the bottom half of the graduate earnings distribution would gain virtually nothing from tuition fee reimbursement
The corollary of this is that by far the largest direct beneficiary of any such reimbursement by universities would be the government… Of the total amount reimbursed, more than two thirds would end up in the government’s coffers.
No reimbursement option is particularly palatable for the government. Forcing universities to reimburse students may well bankrupt some of them, causing major disruption for some students and others. If the government shouldered the full costs, that would constitute an expensive give-away benefitting mainly high earners and international students.

Wonkhe also have a write up of the debate.

NUS – calls for change

The National Union of Students (NUS) has said students need urgent financial support as well as a plan for a new education system built on the principles of being lifelong, fully-funded, accessible and democratic, at the upcoming spending review.

NUS has been encouraging students and students’ unions to hold Town Hall meetings with MPs, so that students can share their experiences, and put forward their demands directly to them. This is being supported by a programme of action being led by grassroots student organisers throughout the week to demand that the government provide them with financial support, and that universities and colleges meet their demands – including rent rebates.

Research by the NUS has shown that 20% of students did not think that they would be able to pay their rent and essential bills, and 3 in 4 students were anxious about paying their rent this term.

NUS is calling for the government to take urgent action by –

Providing funding to colleges and universities to be directed towards hardship funds
Investing to eradicate digital poverty and ensure that students have the technology they need to learn, including free internet access
Introducing financial support for students during lockdown periods
Providing students with the right to leave accommodation contracts without any financial detriment
Directing funding towards students’ unions to empower students to shape decisions

On the lifelong, funded, accessible and democratic education system NUS calls for

Reintroduce non-repayable, means-tested maintenance grants, and set eligibility for these at previous levels plus inflationary increases
Greater investment into adult education, and all adult education funding invested into the further education sector to be ring-fenced for this purpose
All Equivalent or Lower Qualification (ELQ) funding restrictions should be removed through all levels of education
Raise the base funding rate for 16- and 17-year-olds in further education to at least £4,760
Extend the maximum student loan eligibility to enable all students to afford basic living costs without reliance on part-time employment
Greater investment in NHS children and young people’s mental health services

Commenting ahead of the spending review, Larissa Kennedy, NUS National President, said –

The treatment of students during this pandemic is not an anomaly, it is indicative of an education system rotting at its core, with this being just the latest manifestation of the tyranny of the marketised university, which is forced to prioritise profit above all else.
Students need support now. They deserve better than the meagre measures they have been offered so far, and need urgent support to prevent a worsening mental health crisis, students turning to foodbanks for their next meal and a lack of access to education.
On top of exposing and exacerbating some of the systemic challenges for students, COVID-19 has also created an urgent need for greater support. The spending review must look to the future and secure students’ present. The most important measures for this will be ensuring that students have the financial support that they require to cope with the effects of this pandemic.

PQs

Education Sector

The average programme funding for T level and non-T level full time study (the interest is in the comparison/different funding levels).
A different perspective question on the ‘bail out’ – The cost to the public purse for accounting and auditing to support universities to access finances during the C-19 outbreak.
Stepping up the pressure a little Baroness Tonge asks what legislative options the Government is considering to ensure all HEIs sign up to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.
With Welsh exams cancelled how will the Government ensure a level playing field for university admissions in 2021. Move to Admissions section?
How universities are accountable for curriculum decisions including whether to decolonise the history curriculum.
The Government doesn’t intend to investigate ebook pricing and licensing practices although the zero rate VAT change is constantly under review for all taxes.

Covid

Covid: students only need one negative test to travel – Lord Parkinson: The guidance for students in England is that only one negative test is required.
Lord Parkinson on the January return to university guidance: people will want a bit of certainty about the resumption of education in January. Our hope is to be able to provide that guidance before the end of term so that everyone knows the situation going into the Christmas holidays. But of course, like everything, that will depend on developments in the virus and the pandemic. Lord Parkinson sidestepped answering whether students would require to be tested in January.
Accommodation codes of practice (and whether they need revision in light of Covid)
Students who wish to terminate accommodation contracts to go home to study online
Government urges universities and private providers to ‘be fair’ in their decision over rent charges during Covid, particularly for clinically vulnerable students.
Covid clusters at educational settings

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Other news

Green Industrial Revolution: The Prime Minister has unveiled his Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution – summary here. Also Andrew Griffith MP has been appointed as the UK’s Net Zero Business Champion. His role is to support the country’s business community to make credible plans to net zero by 2050 or earlier and showcase the UK’s place as a global leader in tackling climate change.

Board Diversity: Wonkhe report: that Advance HE has announced a new project to diversify higher education governing boards. In partnership with Perrett Laver, the HE Board Diversity Project will establish an evidence base of what can be done to ensure that university governing boards are truly diverse, with the aim to develop and share best practices and ways forward for the sector.

Racially inclusive: Wonkhe tell us that SUMS Consulting has published a briefing paper on making higher education institutions racially inclusive. The paper, based on a panel discussion with representatives from universities and student unions, covers best practices in support of students and staff; leadership on issues of equality, diversity and inclusion; creating an anti-racist university and other sector wide initiatives.

Making friends: HEPI have a blog on How the Government should reset its relationship with universities.

NEETS: Wonkhe have picked up on a Financial Times article which covers statistics from the Office for National Statistics demonstrating that the number of 18-24 year olds not in education, employment and training fell compared to last year. An interesting counterpoint to recent stories, although the population dip demographics may come into play.

Station of the Nation HE style: There’s a new HEPI blog on the state of HE today – Turf wars, new providers and spending reviews – and how there are 118 fewer higher education providers in England than there were meant to be in 2020

Degree Apprenticeship regulatory regime: Wonkhe tell us that Universities that deliver degree apprenticeships will be subject to Education and Skills Funding Agency funding audits from April next year, according to a report in FE Week this morning. The first audits could come in the same month that Ofsted starts to inspect degree apprenticeships.

Shared Prosperity Fund: The University Alliance have published an open letter to the Government, (signed by 70 universities and businesses) calling for clarity on the delivery of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF). UKSPF is due to replace EU Structural Funds after they wrap up in 2023 and the EU funds have been a key enabler of collaboration between universities and businesses with funds used to support and develop communities and regions. The letter pushes for greater transparency and argues that without the timely replacement of funds, many of the projects and schemes universities and businesses collaboratively deliver in local areas across the UK are at risk. Affecting livelihoods across the county in a time of growing economic challenges.

Student Protection (closure): Wonkhe outline the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA)’s new briefing note on complaints arising from course, campus, or provider closure. In the case of provider closure, there are particular concerns relating to the financial implications for students of transferring institution, the need to preserve student records, the impact of interruptions to ongoing processes such as academic appeals, placements, or research projects, arranging for the award of exit qualifications, and management of student accommodation. Wonkhe has a blog wondering if the protection we give students matches the risks they take.

Student Fee comparability: iNews covers analysis by the Russell Group that showed that by academic year 2023-24 per student funding in England will be similar in real terms to 2011-12, before the tripling of tuition fees.

Careers Guidance: The Social Mobility Commission published research on how effective training and careers guidance for frontline or low-skilled workers can increase their progression, pay and social mobility. It found that organisations with strong progression cultures benefit from increased productivity, higher quality outputs, lower staff turnover and being seen as more attractive places to work.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

July 23, 2020

HE Policy Update for the w/e 23rd July 2020

Business Engagement, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, NHS, PG research, Public engagement, Student Engagement jforster

We’ve been inundated with words – Ministerial speeches this week, (g)rumblings over social mobility continue, and Parliament showed no signs of slowing down as they hurtled towards recess. Plus lots to look forward to as we look to the next horizon. With that in mind, for BU readers we have issued a horizon scan in our separate occasional series. And for staff outside BU, we have published the summary on the Lighthouse Policy Group blog site.

Spending Review

The Chancellor launched the comprehensive spending review which will conclude in the Autumn. Priorities:

strengthening the UK’s economic recovery from COVID-19 by prioritising jobs and skills
levelling up economic opportunity across all nations and regions of the country by investing in infrastructure, innovation and people – thus closing the gap with competitors by spreading opportunity, maximising productivity and improving the value add of each hour worked
improving outcomes in public services, including supporting the NHS and taking steps to cut crime and ensure every young person receives a superb education
making the UK a scientific superpower, including leading in the development of technologies that will support the government’s ambition to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050
strengthening the UK’s place in the world
improving the management and delivery of our commitments, ensuring that all departments have the appropriate structures and processes in place to deliver their outcomes and commitments on time and within budget

Note that the government response to the Augar report and the conclusion to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding is also due with the outcome of the review in the Autumn as confirmed by the Minister last week. This was (last) promised in the Autumn last year with the comprehensive spending review that never happened because of the election…..(seems so long ago!).

So with Augar in mind, perhaps, Boris took to the Telegraph last weekend to announce the Cabinet Office is considering restructuring HE fees. His piece sits behind a pay wall so we include the coverage from Wonkhe and Research Professional below.

Wonkhe: At the weekend, the Prime Minister unexpectedly revealed that variable fees may be back on the agenda. He said in an interview that Number Ten is reviewing the “pricing mechanisms” of university courses, in a move that could see “reductions in the cost of science and engineering degrees, with higher fees for some arts subjects.” We learn that Johnson believes that what went wrong was everybody charged the “maximum whack”, because no institution felt that they could accept the loss of prestige associated with offering a course that was cheaper. “In reality, it would have been much more sensible if courses had been differently priced. We are certainly looking at all that.” If that seems familiar, that’s because it sounds eerily similar to an Australian government announcement last month. Could we be heading in the same direction?
Research Professional: It would be easy to lump Johnson’s comments in with the recent spate of government attacks on ‘low-value courses’. Both education secretary Gavin Williamson and universities minister Michelle Donelan have in recent weeks used language that alluded to their beliefs on varying course quality, and it would appear that Johnson shares their concerns. By financially disincentivising study in the arts and humanities, you risk creating the perception that these broad disciplines (and all the cultural and societal capital they contain) are the sole reserve of the moneyed elite. Education for the poor is all about getting a job; education for the rich is about personal enrichment and development. And getting a job, too, of course—which doesn’t seem to have been too much of a problem for Williamson (social sciences degree), Donelan (history and politics) or Johnson (literae humaniores).

Research Professional have full coverage here and here.

The piece also states the Government intends to support FE the same way Governments have supported HE. Does this ring alarm bells for anyone else? Tuition fees for FE? Even if fees started small (as they did with HE) this would be a major change and many would argue a blow for social mobility (even if they are income contingent). Of course this is jumping the gun and what the Government probably actually meant by that statement is providing a good level of funding for the FE sector. However, FE fees must have crossed the Government’s mind – apart from anything else, the contrast between apprenticeships (paid for by employers and much grumbled about by government because the levy has not achieved what they wanted) and tuition fees is interesting.

There was lots of commentary following the Telegraph article on Twitter. This one summed it up for Sarah (read the two comments too!) and this one posts excerpts of the article.

Parliamentary questions

Government HE spending in last 10 years.
Interestingly: how much the cost of student finance is forecast to increase in the absence of further policy changes in the next three years.
The annual cost of student finance to 2030 assuming no policy changes; the cost of HE to the public purse for last 20 year by degree subject area; the cost of media studies to the public purse (last 3 years)

HE restructuring regime announced

The Government announced their scheme to support HE institutions in financial difficulties (detail here). They call it a ‘restructuring regime’ because it is – any institutions needing to access the loan to keep themselves afloat can expect full intervention – chopping courses and curtailing services to only deliver the aspects the Government considers in the public interest (fitting national priorities and any local demonstrated needs). The Government are clear the support isn’t for all providers, so if the Government doesn’t think the institution can deliver in the national interest it will be allowed to close – Government’s intention is not to provide a blanket bail-out to the sector. It is not a guarantee that no organisation will fail (WMS). If that happens the OfS student protection arrangements will come into force – see later in this section for the consultation on those.

An independently-chaired Higher Education Restructuring Regime Board will be established, which will include input from members with specialist knowledge external to Government. The Board will advise the Minister.
It’s a repayable loan only offered as last resort measure with specific conditions that align to wider Government objectives: The scheme aims to support the important role universities play in their local economies, and preserve the country’s science base.
If eligible, providers will need to comply with conditions ({harsh ones, see below) to focus the sector towards the future needs of the country, such delivering high quality courses with good graduate outcomes. As a condition for taking part in the scheme, universities will be required to make changes that meet wider Government objectives, depending on the individual provider’s circumstances. This could include ensuring they deliver high quality courses with strong graduate outcomes, improving their offer of qualifications available, and focusing resources on the front line by reducing administrative costs, including vice-chancellor pay.

Conditions would be determined on a case-by-case basis, but there are some baselines:

Clear economic and value for money case for intervention
The need for support is because of C-19 (ie not underlying and longer-term financial weakness) and there must be a clear and sustainable model following the restructure (i.e. once the Government has provided the loan the provider won’t fail anyway).
Providers will only be supported if their collapse would cause significant harm to the national or local economy/society (examples given are the loss of high-quality research or teaching provision, a disruption to COVID-19 research or healthcare provision or overall disruption to policy objectives including a significant impact on outcomes for students).
Providers must comply with their legal duties to secure freedom of speech. (How can this be demonstrated? And have the DfE just zipped through the last 5 University Minister’s pronouncements and added their pet projects in? Probably not or accommodation costs might have appeared (Skidmore). And they haven’t gone as far as printing costs Gyimah –although nearly, see below). So no, this is probably purely political.
The provider must continue to meet the OfS’ regulatory requirements.
In exploring whether the Government will provide support the institution must cooperate with independent business review advisers.

The business review will address a number of things, and this is where the direction of travel really becomes clear:

Provision – removing any duplication of provision, cutting out the dead wood and refocusing the offer on high-quality courses with strong student outcomes, low drop-out rates and high proportions of graduates achieving the high-skilled employment measure which ALSO develop skills aligned to local and national economic and social employment needs.
Revising the level of provision – could any of the provision be more effectively delivered at Level 4 or 5 or through a local FE college?
Governance – strengthening governance and leadership
Efficiency – reviewing admin costs to identify cost savings and efficiencies to achieve future sustainability (senior pay, professional services, selling or repurposing assets to repay loans, fund restructuring, closing down unviable campuses or provision, considering mergers and options for consolidation and service sharing including with FE). The growth of administrative activities that do not demonstrably add value must be tackled head on.
Ensuring student protection – current students to complete the course on which they enrolled or an equivalent course by remaining at the same or transferring to a different provider.

Some other choice snippets:

The funding of student unions should be proportionate and focused on serving the needs of the wider student population rather than subsidising niche activism and campaigns. (On this RP say: Is the government really suggesting that representation of students is overfunded? And are universities expected to interfere further in what student unions get up to?)

And this is telling:

We would encourage any provider looking to restructure outside the regime also to bear in mind the statement of policy direction set out in this document, to align with our overall strategic direction for HE in England.
Public funding for courses that do not deliver for students will be reassessed.
It is probable that the sector in 2030 will not look the same as it does now

The DfE have done a fantastic job of setting out all the Government’s priorities. This is not just about the restructuring regime, as it says very clearly, this is about government’s priorities for HE going forwards.

Research Professional point out that: Access and widening participation get no mention. And on post-graduation employment that doesn’t reach the ‘graduate’ level threshold they ask – what if the benefits of taking a [degree] course are mainly about gaining better opportunities than are available without it?

SoS Gavin Williamson stated: We need our universities to achieve great value for money – delivering the skills and a workforce that will drive our economy and nation to thrive in the years ahead. My priority is student welfare, not vice-chancellor salaries.

These latest rescue measures are not available to independent HE providers who do not already receive public funding. Alex Proudfoot, Chief Executive of Independent Higher Education, said:

The coronavirus pandemic has generated huge disruption and uncertainty in all walks of life, and higher education is no exception. We welcome the Government’s recognition that some providers may run into difficulties through no fault of their own…Independent higher education providers do not expect a bailout, but they do expect their Government to take ownership of the nationwide lockdown it ordered, and to recognise the impact this decision had in the form of significant lost revenues from the cancellation of intakes and the crucial summer short course market. Businesses in the hospitality and tourism sectors were rightly helped to make up some of the income lost from closures. No less of a helping hand should be extended to education businesses – SMEs, for the most part – for whom the lockdown directly caused cancellations which have hit their bottom line. They urgently need the same consideration of a Business Rates Holiday and targeted grants to sustain them past this difficult period, and allow them to play their part in the essential task of retraining the many thousands of workers displaced by this crisis.

It would be a difficult task for the Government to extend a similar ‘restructuring regime’ bailout to the independent sector (not least because the DfE don’t have their heads around these type of providers yet) but Alex makes a key point in highlighting the lack of arrangement for this sector. This Government is keen for the independent providers to be a success (and suitable competition to drive up standards in regular HE), these private providers are also a crucial part of the bridge between industry and education in the Government’s technical and vocation pathways agendas. Yet these providers may go under before the FE reforms are enacted.

RP comment:

The terms of the bailout for universities facing financial difficulties are such that no vice-chancellor could ever accept them—a merger would be a preferable option to being run by the board of the Restructuring Regime.
The consequence will be that in order to avoid straying into financial hot water, university managers will be much more hawkish than they might otherwise have been over cost-cutting. That means more job losses than might have been the case. Intentionally or not, the government has fired the starting pistol on a kind of anti-furlough scheme for university staff.
Not only will universities be reducing capacity at a time when they should be gearing up for the unprecedented investment promised by the R&D roadmap, but an exit from the restrictions imposed by the coronavirus pandemic depends largely on the success of university research teams like those working on vaccines…
The promising results coming out of these labs are not the product of lone geniuses but the outcome of a research ecosystem, which includes cross-border collaboration, and an institutional pyramid, which involves teaching and research in subjects other than the life sciences.
Those who are calling the shots in government education policy—this does not necessarily include Williamson and Donelan—are listening to voices telling them that the cure to the UK’s productivity problems is higher technical skills. However, the UK does not have an economy with extensive opportunities in advanced manufacturing—80 per cent of GDP is generated by services, which require graduates with broad and flexible skills.
Rather than producing graduates for the UK economy as it is, the education system is being pushed into training people for an economy that does not exist. Williamson wants a German-style further education system, but he does not have at his disposal the several centuries it took to build up the German guild system and the Marshall Plan that built up the German manufacturing base—or the euro, which sustains it.

OfS: consultation on new powers to intervene

Alongside this the OfS announced a consultation on a new targeted condition of registration allowing the OfS to intervene more quickly where providers are at material risk of closure and therefore there is increased risk to students’ studies. It is intended the new powers continue post pandemic: The implementation of proposals set out today would help ensure the protection of students on an ongoing basis, both during and after the pandemic.

OfS are proposing that providers comply with specific directions to take action to protect students such as:

continuing to teach existing students before closing
making arrangements to transfer students to appropriate courses at other universities and colleges
awarding credit for partially completed courses and awarding qualifications where courses have been completed
offering impartial information, advice and guidance to students on their options and next steps
enabling students to make complaints and apply for refunds or compensation where appropriate
archiving records so that students can access evidence of their academic attainment in the future.

Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive OfS, said:

Our regulatory approach has extended the protection available to students if their course, campus or provider closes. We had intended to consult on measures to strengthen our ability to protect students, including from the consequences of provider closure. But with financial risk heightened during the pandemic, it has become clear that we need to prioritise some elements of those plans. Nobody wants a university or college to run into financial trouble, but where this happens, it is vital that students are able to complete their studies with as little disruption as possible and receive proper credit for their achievements.
This proposed condition would ensure that we are able to act swiftly and decisively where there is a material risk of closure. We have been clear that, as a regulator, we wish to reduce unnecessary burden on higher education providers. For the vast majority of universities and colleges that are in a sound financial position, these changes will not have any effect.
This is a carefully targeted and proactive measure to protect students, particularly during these uniquely challenging times. Where universities and colleges are at material risk of closure, we will ensure that our focus is on the needs of students.

Meanwhile over in FE…

The Government (DfE) has set out proposals to strengthen relationships with colleges and promote better planning within FE provision. The Dame Mary Ney review on the financial oversight of colleges concluded 9 months ago and has now been published by the Government along with their response. It proposes:

Strengthened alignment between the Further Education Commissioner and Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA)
A regular strategic dialogue led by the ESFA and Further Education Commissioner’s team with all college boards around priorities, starting from September 2020
New whistle-blowing requirements for colleges, including publication of policies on college websites
A review of governance guidance to strengthen transparency
A new College Collaboration Fund round

More changes are expected to be announced when the Government publish their FE White Paper (due Autumn).

Some key excerpts from the written ministerial statement:

Survey – Despite the Government’s intentions to invest in FE the Association of Colleges’ summer 2020 survey has revealed that colleges are providing hardship support exceeding the costs of what they have available, laptops and connectivity resource doesn’t cover enough of the disadvantaged learners and redundancies are imminent. The report states:

Redundancies:

46% of colleges are planning to make redundancies by the end of the autumn term 2020.
21% will have made redundancies by September 2020.

Hardship

88% of colleges have evidence of increased student hardship.
90% of colleges report that their bursary / hardship funds are under more pressure as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
56% of colleges reported that their existing and additional bursary funding from DfE has not enabled them to purchase laptops and/or connectivity (dongles) to support all their disadvantaged learners.
78% of colleges would need additional resources to support the provision of free college meal vouchers to current eligible students over the summer holiday period.

The level of additional resource needed to meet these hardship needs ranged from £20,000 to £2,000,000 with an average of £300,000 per college.

And on transport:

Four out of five colleges anticipate major transport difficulties around September re-opening.

Comments from FE sector on student hardship:

Support from government is not on a level playing field with schools.
We are providing meal vouchers over the summer, but we can’t really afford to do this.
Digital poverty is a major concern and pressure.
Access to a laptop without broadband is of limited use.
Laptop bursaries are wholly insufficient to meet demand.
Free transport would make a huge difference to learners. Removal of the oyster for travel will increase pressure on young people.
Bursary allocation has been reduced for next year.

FE Vision – The Independent Commission on the College of the Future has published People, productivity and place: a new vision for colleges – a vision for the college of the future, accompanied by a collection of short essays and case studies about the civic role of colleges.

Education Committee

Here is more coverage on what was said at last week’s Education Committee hearing with Minister Michelle Donelan. We covered this last week but the transcript wasn’t out. You can read it in full here.

Another ministerial speech

We’ve had quite a number of speeches on HE recently – Boris, Gavin, Michelle and Shadow Minister Emma Hardy have all spoken multiple times over the last few weeks. The Minister spoke again this week as part of the Festival of HE (even though it finished over a week ago). Research Professional (RP) cover the speech which reiterated the same themes as her previous speeches and appearance in front of the Education Committee:

Much of her address centred on what we may now be able to call the minister’s hobbyhorse: differentiating between what she terms “true”, “genuine” social mobility and the old social mobility…
She stated: I want to continue to make clear the passionate importance I place on achieving genuine social mobility…true social mobility is when we put students and their needs and career ambitions first—be that in higher education, further education or apprenticeships.
RP continue: To be fair to Donelan, it is too simplistic to say that simply attending university will be beneficial for everyone. There are good arguments to be made about how we measure social mobility…
Donelan: True social mobility is not getting them to the door, it’s getting them to the finish line of a high-quality course that will lead them to a graduate job.

The focus away from access only and onto student support, achievement and careers and post-graduation support is all within the current Access and Participation Plans. The big access-only push hasn’t existed since the demise of Aim Higher (and even then Aim Higher did so much more). So the Minister is really only bringing a focus to the aims the work is already pushing for – although likely (to use the words of a former access Tsar) the Government will want further, faster, progress. And this is the sticking point for most HE institutions – fast progress is not easy to come by.

RP state:

Donelan’s example raises many questions and legitimate problems. What it does not do is offer any evidence that slowing the expansion of higher education will address those issues. Surely it would be better, for example, to look at why progression rates are lower among some groups of students, rather than concluding simply that university is not for them. Although the Government may argue that this is what the sector has been doing – to little avail.
It also seems fair to ask why those with the same qualification but a different colour of skin are not being hired into top roles (although that is also a fair question to ask of universities specifically). It seems unlikely that the sole cause of this career discrepancy is their attendance at a university—and even less likely that their progress would have been more in line with that of white graduates had they opted not to attend university at all.
It would be wrong to paint the minister’s speech as another lecture on social mobility—that was only one part of the address. However, until Donelan addresses the issue of whether the demographic make-up of university attendees “matters” or not following her comments last week, it may be the issue that comes to define her tenure.

RP also have this article on the other aspects of Donelan’s speech in which the Minister called for more modular courses for adult learners lamenting the continued norm for three year degrees.

Donelan said she was “determined” the government would “support our universities to become more flexible” and deliver more modular courses, as “now is the time to innovate”…. modular courses are “tremendously desirable to adult learners looking to upskill, and it is likely to be more important than ever as the economy recovers from coronavirus”.
“If Covid has taught us one thing in reference to the higher education sector, it is how flexible it is – let’s utilise this flexibility. Now is the time to build on the recent innovation we have seen.

The Minister feels shorter courses are particularly important for portfolio careers.

The minister also stressed she wanted to see “more emphasis on part-time learning that links with labour market needs and skills gaps”, more degree apprenticeships, and more higher technical education at Levels 4 and 5. She also spoke favourably about two-year degrees.
“I…want the sector to think more about how it delivers learning differently,” she said. “Sadly, the three-year bachelor’s degree has increasingly become the predominant mode of study. But that doesn’t suit all students. Many young people would like to earn while they learn.”

Donelan also stated she wanted to see the practice of making conditional unconditional offers “end for good”. “I don’t want to see students making decisions that are not in their best interests. Quite frankly, there is no justification for such practices. Once again Donelan shows herself out of touch with those students for whom unconditional offers were originally designed. But maybe she doesn’t mean them.

The Guardian have a good article taking issue with the Government’s new stance whereby they want less pupils progressing to university and have glossed over the disadvantaged groups access. The article challenges the Government:

“We need to create and support opportunities for those who don’t want to go to university, not write them off,” says the education secretary. On this point, he’s right. But let’s be clear: it is the Conservative government who wrote off non-academic pupils as if they were bad cheques. Successive Tory education secretaries have made it harder to pass GCSEs, chopped vocational qualifications from the school curriculum, slashed FE funding by eye-watering amounts, and complicated the apprenticeship system so badly that only half as many young people now starting an apprenticeship as in 2017.
If Williamson wants us to believe that further and technical education can genuinely have parity in the future and this whole narrative isn’t just a way of pulling up the drawbridge on university access, here are a few things he could do.
First, if there are going to be fewer undergraduate places, in order to preserve social mobility a large portion should be reserved for those from low-income families or areas. Second, if apprenticeships are for everyone, not just “other people’s kids”, then why not set another target? Make it so that every school is expected to send, say, 25% of young people on to apprenticeships. No exceptions for grammar schools. No exceptions for schools in leafy areas.
Finally, make student maintenance loans (the ones used for living on) available to those on vocational routes. A big draw of university life is the ability to live independently, using the loan and topping it up with part-time work. Apprentice wages are often too low to live on, and long hours make top-up work difficult. Fund vocational routes fairly and the calculation becomes very different.
Do this, and Williamson’s announcement suddenly looks like a genuine revolution. Until then, I fear it’s just another way of cutting back and preventing people like me from going into higher education. Unimaginable? Not any more.

And the shadow minister speaks too

Shadow HE Minister Emma Hardy spoke at the Convention for HE (RP cover it here – see second half of article) and today in Conversation with HEPI.

RP report she commented on the Government’s social mobility stance:

More incisive were Hardy’s words on the issue of the week: does the background of the people who enter university matter, or is it getting in the way of “true social mobility”? In short, the shadow minister’s answer was: Yes, it matters.
“The government’s response to the looming university financial crisis has been to launch an attack on the sector, accusing it of offering ‘low-value degrees’,” she said, “astonishingly implying that if you don’t come from a family where your parents have gone to university, you could be tricked into attending university.
“To enable real choice for everyone, the government should be focused on identifying the barriers to learning and breaking them down, not establishing more.
“We cannot ever see a situation again where education is viewed as a privilege for the few and not a right for all… No country’s economy has grown on the back of reducing access to higher education. It matters which groups in society get access to university.”

On the Government’s rescue HE restructure package RP report that Emma stated:

Labour cannot countenance the loss of a single university,” she said. “At a time when the country is facing the possibility of the deepest recession in its history—when unemployment is set to soar and when retraining and reskilling will be more needed than ever—the government’s position is beyond rational comprehension.”

Emma Hardy’s focussed speech during this week’s Conversation with HEPI was interesting. Labour’s approach to HE agrees with several of the Government’s themes, however, the devil really is in the detail, and there was a world of difference in tone. She is a big fan of FE and HE working together seamlessly to deliver for their local communities. Of course, the Government have been pushing HE to support and work with the full range of local institutions from primary up for years. Labour’s approach is ‘work with to deliver’ not the ‘done to’ sharing of expertise that Theresa May originally envisaged.

Themes:

A passion for degree apprenticeships and level 4 & 5 qualifications, however, Emma took issue with the Government’s universal aim for all HE institutions to offer them stating offering degree apprenticeships is dependent on the local area – and this relies on the local infrastructure and Government investment to achieve that infrastructure in the area. She stated that the Government’s new found love of this sector is ringing hollow.
Post qualification admissions – the sector shouldn’t block a change in approach and it shouldn’t be dropped because it is just so difficulty to do. Instead Emma favoured a cross-sector collaborative approach dealing with the difficult elements in turn, gradually adjusting each aspect from FE to HE to produce a new system that works across the board.
Emma wasn’t opposed to student number caps (as a temporary solution) in principle, however she disagreed with the Government’s method and stated they haven’t got rid of the competition as intended. Looking to the future she wouldn’t rule out a form of student number limitation, however, she said she was new to the sector and hadn’t formulated her firm position on the matter yet.
Key differences were Labour’s approach to social mobility which opposes the reduction in courses and allowing universities to fail (although their position on private providers wasn’t stated). Labour believes genuine choice is needed particularly across disadvantaged groups whose personal life circumstances (such as caring responsibilities) and the limitations of the geographic area they live within may already limit available choices. Emma stated that no university should be allowed to fail – failure impacts on choice, aspiration and the local economy…potentially creating cold spots. Unsurprisingly Emma supported the civic university model.
While overall Emma was against differential fees and intervention to cut courses she did allow that some courses did need looking at. She also stated the sector shouldn’t leave itself vulnerable to lazy attacks [from the Government and media].
Emma was firmly behind the new 5 year targets in the Access and Participation Plans stating they could be revolutionary, changing the make up of universities, changing the system.
She also disagreed with the Government’s focus on graduate employment stating the rise in child poverty and early services cuts will undermine social mobility and that it is unfair of the Government to have removed such services and then blame the HE sector for not churning out socially climbing graduates.

Admissions

The OfS have updated their series of reports on unconditional offer making.

As we know, they, and the government, believe that unconditional offers are unconditionally bad, except where they are used to admit students based on a portfolio or similar. That much is very clear after the chaos of the moratorium/proposed retrospective ban/final new licence condition that we have worked through over the last few months. You can read more about the licence condition in our update from 9^th July in case you missed it.

Their press release makes it fairly clear;

The Office for Students (OfS) has today reiterated that unconditional offers risk pushing students into decisions that are not in their best interests, as updated analysis shows that young people who accepted unconditional offers before sitting their A-level exams are less likely to continue into their second year of study.
The analysis finds that, even after controlling for a range of characteristics associated with dropout rates, A-level entrants who accepted an unconditional offer in 2017-18 had a continuation rate between 0.4 and 1.1 percentage points lower than would have been expected had they taken up a conditional offer instead. This translates to between 70 and 175 of the 15,725 A-level entrants placed through unconditional offers that year.
UCAS analysis published in December 2019 found that applicants holding an unconditional offer in the 2019 cycle were, on average, 11.5 percentage points more likely to miss their predicted A-level grades by three or more grades. Today’s analysis by the OfS suggests that this lower A-level attainment then results in higher dropout rates in higher education.
The OfS has also previously highlighted that ‘conditional unconditional’ offers – now banned until September 2021 because of concerns around unfair admissions practices during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic – distort student choice and could be seen as akin to ‘pressure selling’.
Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the OfS, said today:
‘It is becoming increasingly clear that unconditional offers can have a negative impact on students. Unconditional offers can lead to students under-achieving compared to their predicted A-level grades, choosing a university and course that may be sub-optimal for them, and ultimately being at increased risk of dropping out entirely.
‘Dropout rates are overall low in England, so this is a small effect. But we remain concerned that unconditional offers – particularly those with conditions attached – can pressure students into making decisions that may not be in their best interests, and reduce their choices. It is particularly important that we allow students the space to make informed decisions at this time of increased uncertainty, which is why we have temporarily banned ‘conditional unconditional’ offers during the pandemic.
‘It is in everyone’s interests for students to achieve their full potential at school, enrol on a higher education course that best fits their needs, interests and aspirations, and succeed on that course.’

Their analysis says (excerpts):

The number of unconditional offers being made has continued to grow. In 2019, four in 10 applicants had at least one offer with an unconditional component and over a quarter received at least one ‘conditional unconditional’ offer. Meanwhile, the proportion of students receiving at least one ‘direct unconditional’ offer rose modestly (0.5 percentage points since 2018) and the proportion receiving ‘other unconditional’ offers fell slightly (0.2 percentage points since 2018).
As previously reported, there is little evidence that applicants placed through an unconditional offer are either more or less likely to enrol the following autumn. Regardless of whether they hold an unconditional offer, around three per cent of applicants placed through UCAS are not identified as starting higher education in the same year, or at the intended higher education provider. Applicants that have come through ‘other UCAS routes’ are roughly equally likely to be identified as starting higher education as those placed through conditional or unconditional offers.
For entrants in 2015-16, 2016-17, and now 2017-18, a lower proportion (more than 1 percentage point) of those entering with unconditional offers continued with their studies after the first year, compared with those who enter with conditional offers.
By contrast, the model estimates that 2017-18 BTEC entrants with unconditional offers were between 0.3 and 2.6 percentage points more likely to continue with their studies, relative to being placed through a conditional offer. The model estimates that between 15 and 135 additional BTEC entrants in that year continued with their studies having been placed through an unconditional offer, instead of a conditional offer. This is out of 5,115 BTEC entrants placed through unconditional offers in our 2017-18 modelling population.
- In addition, when looking at the different types of unconditional offer, A-level entrants in 2017-18 who were placed through ‘conditional unconditional’ or ‘direct unconditional’ offers are shown to be less likely to continue with their studies, relative to those placed through a conditional offer, after controlling for the same factors as above. ‘Direct unconditional’ offers are found to have the largest negative relationship with continuation rates (between -0.9 and -2.4 percentage points), compared to ‘conditional unconditional’ offers (between -0.1 and -1.0 percentage points). We find no statistically significant difference between the continuation rates of A-level entrants placed through ‘other unconditional’ offers and those placed through conditional offers.
- In our modelling of continuation rates, we control for predicted entry qualifications, instead of achieved qualifications, so that the model estimates include the impact of unconditional offers on Level 3 attainment reported by UCAS. Annex D contains results from an alternative model which controls for achieved entry qualifications instead (see Model II). This model finds no statistically significant association between unconditional offers and continuation for A-level entrants in all entrant years available. This would be consistent with what would be found if poorer performance at A-level, relative to predicted grades for those placed through unconditional offers, were driving the lower continuation rates of these entrants

NSS

The National Student Survey outcomes were published (interactive charts are here). Last week we highlighted the OfS analysis which suggested C-19 didn’t have a real terms impact on the responses given to the survey. This week OfS have published summaries of the data from the national position (the charts can be viewed here).

And as reported last week on the negative side students continued to report comparatively lower rates of satisfaction with how their courses are organised and how effectively changes are communicated by their university or college.

Research Professional report on the NSS. And Wonkhe have a blog examining which factors that improve teaching practice may improve positive outcomes within the NSS. The blog is keen on consistency.

Student Finance

The APPG for students has published Reforming Student Finance: Perspectives from Student Representatives.

Student finance and cost of living

Students generally felt that current levels of maintenance support are inadequate.
Support should be increased and non-repayable means-tested maintenance grants should be reintroduced
The system should better recognise the diversity of students and their particular needs
Tailored support should be offered to certain students through better means testing
Accommodation was identified as the main cost, with prices having increased significantly over the last decade – in many cases exceeding the maintenance loan available
The relative reduction in maintenance funding was a concern as household income thresholds had not risen with inflation
Other issues which were raised included travel costs, childcare costs, and that the current London weighting does not address the different costs of living all around the UK
Consideration could be given to moving to monthly payments, instead of the current termly instalments

Effects

Many students respond to the shortfall in money they faced, if they do not have savings or money from their family to plug the gap, by taking up significant amounts of part-time work and taking out commercial loans leading to serious effects on student wellbeing and mental health.
Attainment can also be affected both by the financial stress and through the impact of taking on too much part-time work on their ability to study.
The increase in drop-out rates over the last five years must be seen as a consequence of the above.
Student representatives were clear that the current funding system reproduces existing social injustices, as these issues predominantly affect those from poorer or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds.

Information, advice and guidance

Student representatives generally felt that there was not adequate information, either nationally or through institutions, about various costs of being a student. The ‘hidden costs’ of studying were a particular concern, e.g. textbooks and graduation – students felt they had not been made aware of these enough. Furthermore, the lack of information around funding, particularly for postgraduate students, was a real issue.
Student representatives were also angry about the way that UCAS advertised commercial loans.

Differences between funding agencies across the UK

The timing of students receiving payments was raised as a major issue of difference
The four funding agencies also differ in their treatment of estranged students
All agencies require and allow different levels of input from staff

Other issues identified

Students felt there needs to be better support for distance learning.
Changes were proposed to ‘lifelong learning’ to allow students to undertake further study later in life .
Nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare students – a shortage of funding for these courses was identified; students on these courses were much less able to take on part-time work alongside their studies to support themselves.
The lack of support for childcare was a key concern, as well as a lack of information or support for placements

Loans – Quick repayment facility

Meanwhile Martin Lewis has attacked the Student Loans Company new website. He isn’t a fan and has called the new repayment tool irresponsible and dangerous, stating it gives UK graduates a damaging and demoralising picture of their debts by exaggerating their outstanding loans. He is campaigning against the quick repayment facility on the website and tries to remind the public that they are only required to repay 9% of their earning above the threshold. He stated that unless huge overpayments were made well above the 9% it makes very little difference to the overall debt, except for the reduction in income that the individual will feel (flushing money away unnecessarily). The BBC report that Lewis intends to write to Michelle Donelan to request the quick repayment facility be removed immediately. Given that it may increase the monies returning to the public coffers and Donelan’s track record of toeing the party line his campaign may fall on deaf ears – or only result in a reminder that they don’t have to make overpayments near the facility on the website.

Research Professional cover the argument, including the SLC’s response to Lewis.

Opportunity areas expansion

Donelan announced the expansion of the Opportunity Areas programme (additional £18 million) which will twin the 12 Opportunity areas with places facing similar challenges to help unleash the potential among young people in other parts of the country. It is the fourth year of funding for the Opportunity Areas programme and this year will focus on tackling the exacerbation caused by C-19. Catch up schooling, teacher recruitment and training, and early speech and language development are priorities to help narrow the attainment gap within the Opportunity areas. The article details some of the approaches currently in place to help these areas ‘level up’. Approaches include: improving the quality of careers advice, work experience, digital and other skills for employment, holiday clubs, support for excluded pupils, and opportunities to develop confidence, leadership and resilience.

Devolved news: Wales

Welsh Universities and Colleges will benefit from the announcement of a £50m support package to help them cope with the impact of the coronavirus crisis (£27m for HE; £23m FE). The support is part of the Welsh Government’s actions to support students and Wales’ major education institutions and provide the skills and learning in response to the economic impact of the coronavirus.

The HE Recovery Fund will support universities to maintain jobs in teaching, research and student services, invest in projects to support the wider economic recovery, and support students suffering from financial hardship.

The FE funds will increase teaching support following students’ time away from education due to C-19 virus and help new students with their transition to post-16 learning. Up to £5 million will be provided to support vocational learners to return to college to help them achieve their licence-to-practice qualifications, without needing to re-sit the full year.

An extra £3.2 million will be used to provide digital equipment such as laptops for FE students. £100,000 will also be provided to support regional mental health and wellbeing projects and professional development in Local Authority Community Learning.

Civic engagement rankings

King’s College London, the University of Chicago and the University of Melbourne have published Advancing University Engagement: University engagement and global league tables stating that universities need to better demonstrate their value to society. Universities around the world are making a positive impact through engagement but, unlike teaching and research, this is rarely recognised or celebrated. The report calls for societal impact to be recognised in university rankings and proposes a new framework to measure and rank this impact, or ‘engagement’ to be incorporated into global university league tables. The authors suggest this would encourage universities to ensure more of their activities benefit local communities and wider society, while better showcasing the existing benefits they produce.

Richard Brabner, Director UPP Foundation (which established the Civic University Commission), said:

… it would be much better if existing and new rankings included the value universities bring to society so that they provide a more comprehensive picture of our sector. The report provides an important contribution to this debate and includes a sensible range of indicators. I particularly welcome the report’s focus on embedding civic engagement within the curriculum. This is vital to fostering a student’s long-term commitment to service, as well as developing the skills and attributes to thrive in the outside world.
I would however caution any perception that a global ranking can define whether a university is civic or not. A truly civic university focuses on the needs of its community and region. It is important these local factors drive the activities of a civic university, not the benchmarks or indicators in a ranking.

Public Attitudes to Science

BEIS published the 2019 edition of Public attitudes to science which looks at the UK public’s attitudes to science, scientists and science policy. The survey shows that public opinion places scientists and engineers as the trustworthy professionals, that the public is supportive of spending on ‘blue skies’ research, and that UK adults are becoming more familiar with, and more adaptable to, an ever-accelerating pace of technological change. It also looks in depth on attitudes towards an ageing society, AI and robotics including their use in healthcare, genome editing within food security, and micro pollution and plastics. It finds the public continues to have an appetite for information about science and mainly use television, online news platforms and Facebook to stay informed. However, they’re unsure if they can trust media reporting of science issues – with online sources particularly mistrusted.

Of the range of scientific applications asked about, vaccination and renewable energy attracted near universal public support, while driverless cars, GM crops, nuclear power, and the use of animals in research were the most contentious. However, on balance, more people felt that the benefits outweighed risks in almost all technology areas asked about. The one clear exception was driverless cars, where more people felt the risks outweighed the benefits: only 23% agreed that driverless car technology will be safer than human drivers. It is notable that support for vaccination remained very strong (only 4% felt that the risks outweigh the benefits) despite prevailing media attention around the ‘anti-vaccination’ movement.

On the ageing society:

The large majority (84%) would prefer to live only for as long as they can ensure good quality of life
Two thirds (64%) of people had heard about life extension technologies to slow the ageing process, and 31% would choose this if available. However, people were more negative (62%) than positive (31%) about the impact this would have on society, with people concerned about burden on the NHS and increased taxes for working people.
When asked about different enhancement technologies to assist older people in later life, the public was largely in favour of cognitive enhancing drugs (80%) and to a lesser extent robotic clothing to improve mobility (59%). However, there was much less support for more medically invasive technologies such as brain chip implants to improve intelligence and cognition (24%).
54% had heard about the idea of robot caregivers to help older people and around half (45%) said that they would use one, either for themselves in later life or for a relative. People felt more comfortable with the idea of a robot helping with household tasks (61%) or healthcare (57%) than providing companionship (29%). Eight in ten (80%) thought that robot caregivers would lead to older people having less human contact.

On AI and robotics:

Nine in ten people (90%) had heard about the idea that AI and robots could begin to take over many human jobs, beyond the more routine jobs. Most working people recognised that aspects of their job could be automated in the future: 51% thought that their job could be at least partially automated within the next 5 years, rising to 69% within a 20-year timeframe. Overall, 49% considered this to be a ‘good thing’ for society and 45% ‘a bad thing’
A large majority felt comfortable about AI and robots being used to support a human doctor to make a diagnosis or recommend treatment (80%), or in surgery (71%). The opposite was found in relation to technology replacing human doctors, where a clear majority felt uncomfortable in both contexts (respectively 81% and 75% felt uncomfortable about technology replacing doctors in diagnosis and surgery). While 58% believed AI and robots used in healthcare will accelerate progress in medicine, only 37% thought that it could surpass the accuracy of human doctors. The chief concern was related to loss of contact.
For the purposes of developing healthcare-related AI, the large majority were willing to share their personal health data with the NHS (90%). People were somewhat less willing to share their data with research organisations (73%) and the government (61%), and much less willing to share their data with private companies (35%). This echoed earlier findings that the public is uncomfortable with the role of the private sector in scientific development.
There was widespread disapproval of the use of data to target online adverts and for political campaigning

Research

EU Budgets – The EU R&D budgets have come back well below the level expected. Research Professional report:

Heads of EU member states agreed their stance on a 2021-27 budget of €1,074bn (£970bn) for the bloc in the early hours of this morning, along with a €750bn Covid-19 recovery fund for 2021-23, after four days of tense negotiations.
The budget would devote €75.9bn to the Horizon Europe R&D programme, topped up with €5bn from the fund. The Erasmus+ mobility programme would get €21.2bn, all from the budget. These totals are much less than the European Parliament and research and education institutions wanted, so all eyes are now on the Parliament to see whether it will veto the deal.

This RP article has more detail and the responses from the European research alliances and guilds.

UUK, GuildHE, the Russell Group and European bodies have signed this joint statement aiming to reach agreement by addressing the sticking points on UK participation in Horizon Europe. It addresses:

Demonstrating UK commitment to the programme
Ensuring a fair financial contribution through a ‘two-way’ correction mechanism
Accepting EU oversight of the use of programme funds
Agreeing to introduce reciprocal mobility arrangements to support the programme
Clarifying that the results of research can be exploited beyond the EU

The statement argues that, with enough will on both sides, it should be possible to reach an agreement before the Horizon Europe programme is due to begin in January whilst acknowledging that time is rapidly running out.

UKRI – UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) published their (146 page) Annual Report and Accounts (2019-20). The report recognises the stated significant milestones and achievements as the work supporting the research and innovation community during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the delivery of significant

PhD to Academia – a challenging transition – HEPI published PhD students and their careers examining the professional ambitions of PhD students. Key findings:

Most PhD students (88%) believe their doctorate will positively impact their career prospects.
PhD students are equally more (33%) and less (32%) likely to pursue a research career now than before they started their PhD, with the majority choosing academic research (67%) or research within industry (64%) as a probable career path.
PhD students feel well trained in analytical (83%), data (82%) and technical (71%) skills, along with presenting to specialist audiences (81%) and writing for peer-reviewed journals (64%).
They are less confident of their training in managing people (26%), finding career satisfaction (26%), applying for funding (22%) and managing budgets (11%).
When considering future careers, PhD students are more likely to attend career workshops (76%) and networking events (60%) or to do their own research (64%) than to discuss options with an institutional careers consultant (13%).

The report incorporates qualitative research that captures the voices of PhD students:

‘I don’t feel qualified or prepared to enter a career outside of research.’
‘The requirement to move around in pursuit of short term postdocs is terrible for social and family life’.
‘The academic culture will be detrimental to my mental health.’

Post report the media picked up on the above stated difficulties of moving into an academic career for an early career researcher.

Research parliamentary questions covered:

Tackling diversity in UKRI funded PhD studentships
Encouraging former postdoctoral researchers to return to the profession
Expanding the R&D tax credit to include data and cloud computing costs
No details on the Office for Talent yet
Financial support for charity research sector

And an oral question:

Q – Daniel Zeichner (Lab) (Cambridge): What steps he is taking to secure the future of UK research and development.

A – Amanda Solloway (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy): The Government are now implementing their ambitious R&D roadmap, published earlier this month, reaffirming our commitment to increasing public R&D spending to £22 billion by 2024-25 and ensuring the UK is the best place for scientists, researchers and entrepreneurs to live and work.

Q – Daniel Zeichner: I appreciate the recent announcements, but can the Minister reassure us that all universities will be able to access those loans, with freedom to invest in line with local priorities? Will she take a look at the proposals from the new Whittle laboratory in Cambridge, which needs to match the already secure £23.5 million in private sector funding to develop the first long-haul zero-carbon passenger aircraft?

A – Amanda Solloway: I give my assurance that one of the things we are addressing in the roadmap is ensuring that we become a science superpower. Within that, we are levelling up across the whole of the country. I am committed to making the workplace diverse and ensuring that we have a culture that embraces that throughout the whole of country. We will ensure that UK scientists are appreciated and rewarded.

And another oral question:

Mr Sheerman:…The Minister has a business background, so does she not realise that if she could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow Mrs Thatcher’s example and introduce a windfall profit tax on people who have made a lot of money—the gambling industry and companies such as Amazon—that could be ploughed into research and development? Universities will go through a tough time in the coming months and years, so let us put real resources into research and development as never before.

Amanda Solloway:…The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a taskforce that has been looking into how to support universities. It has enabled us to set up a stability fund, which will enable R&D to continue in our institutions. In addition, in the roadmap, which contains the place strategy, we are talking about lots of levelling up. We are making sure we have the opportunity to take this forward and become the science superpower that we all want to be.

Disability

Advance HE have published Three months to make a difference a booklet detailing seven areas which are challenging for disabled students alongside recommendations for their resolution. It draws on the content raised in a series of roundtables run by the Disabled Students’ Commission (supported by OfS). It highlights that rapid action is needed to ameliorate for the additional challenges C-19 creates for disabled students.

Provide disabled applicants with support and guidance that is reflective of the COVID-19 pandemic in the clearing process
Ensure ease of access to funding for individual level reasonable adjustment
Ensure student support meets and considers the requirements of disabled students during the pandemic
Consider disabled students when making university campuses and accommodation COVID-19 secure
Facilitate disabled students’ participation in welcome and induction weeks and ongoing social activities
Ensure blended learning is delivered inclusively and its benefits are considered in long-term planning
Embed accessibility as standard across all learning platforms and technologies

Parliamentary question: Disabled students’ allowances

Q (Mr Barry Sheerman) (Huddersfield): To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the effect of his Department’s announcement of 6 July 2020 on (a) changes to the Disabled Students’ Allowance and (b) the introduction of a maximum allowance of £25,000 applying to both full-time and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate recipients of that allowance on those students with the highest needs.
A: Michelle Donelan: Regulations will be laid in Parliament to effect this policy change along with the other elements of the student finance package for the 2021-22 academic year. An equality analysis will be published alongside that. The date that these regulations will be laid is yet to be confirmed.
Also Donelan confirmedthat for the vast majority of students receiving DSA funding greater than £25,000, this was driven by funding for the DSA travel grant, which will continue to remain uncapped.

Degree Classifications

UUK have published a press release stating that universities from across the UK have agreed new principles to tackle grade inflation, reconfirming the sector’s strong collective commitment to protect the value of qualifications. There are 6 principles and recommendations to be guided by when deciding the final degree classifications awarded to students. The principles will be added to the UKSCQA statement of intent which outlines specific commitments universities have made to ensure transparency, fairness and reliability in the way they award degrees.

The press release explains:

Alongside six new principles which cover the importance of providing clear learning outcomes, regular reviews, student engagement and transparency in algorithm design, the report includes examples of recommended good practice in the following areas:

Discounting marks – academic experimentation and risk taking by students are important elements to course design and learning, but there should not be the option of discounting core or final year modules. Clear instructions on how discounting applies to the final award and progression through their degree must be provided to students.
Border-line classifications – there should be a maximum zone of consideration of two percentage points from the grade boundary. Rounding, if used, should occur only once, and at the final stage.
Only one algorithm should be used to determine degree classifications and this should be clearly stated to students at the beginning of their studies.
Weighting given to different years within degrees – divergence from the four outlined models(p6; principles) should be limited.

Research Professional write about the announcement and comment:

…universities today find themselves playing catch-up with the government’s perceptions of higher education through a new commitment to tackling grade inflation…
The pledge is suitably vague so as not to impinge on institutional autonomy, covering four ill-defined areas: ensuring assessments continue to stretch and challenge students; reviewing and explaining how final degree classifications are calculated; supporting and strengthening the system of external examiners; and reviewing and publishing data and analysis on students’ degree outcomes.
Greater clarity over algorithms used to calculate degree classifications is in the frame. While there are plans to limit grade borderline boundaries and to stop discounting low grades in final year work. There will also be periodic reviews of how the system works.
Whether this statement of intent will make much practical difference to degree awards in the long run remains to be seen. However, it does show that universities are increasingly preoccupied with responding to the bêtes noires of ministers.

Nursing

The Royal College of Nursing has published Beyond the Bursary: Workforce Supply. It states to get more people into the nursing degree and successfully graduating in England, the Government must provide appropriate support both on entering and throughout the degree. This report details our modelling, undertaken by London Economics, which demonstrates the level of funding required to increase the number of applicants to the nursing degree. It calls on the Government to immediately:

reimburse tuition fees or forgive current debt for all nursing, midwifery, and allied health care students impacted by the removal of the bursary
abolish self-funded tuition fees for all nursing, midwifery, and allied health care students starting in 2020/21 and beyond
introduce universal, living maintenance grants that reflect actual student need.

Parliamentary question:2020 nursing applications so far

PQs

No detriment approach to assessment.
Care leaver outcomes
On the adequacy of predicted grades Donelan stated the disadvantaged groups were more likely to be OVERpredicted: Black applicants were proportionally 19% more likely to be overpredicted compared with White applicants. Disadvantaged applicants (measured using POLAR) were 5% more likely to be overpredicted compared with the most advantaged applicants.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Recess

Parliament is winding down. The House of Commons enters recess at the end of this week, with the Lords following shortly after. Although MPs will return to deal with constituency business and take their summer holidays Ministerial business will continue to tick over with possible, HE announcements during this traditional down period. We’ll continue to monitor the latest developments and keep you informed periodically through the policy update. We anticipate the policy update will be shorter and we won’t send it every week throughout the summer period we have our own recess too, after a very busy few months.

Other news

Levelling up: Guardian article on creating the MIT of the North.

Admissions: iNews has an article based on comment from an Ofqual former board member which states that universities should check with schools what teachers originally predicted because a ‘significant minority’ of students are likely to end up with the ‘wrong’ final grades.

Boys ambition: The Guardian has an article based on research by UCL suggesting boys are more ambitious than girls and more likely to reach to apply to higher tariff institutions. They suggest it could be a factor in explaining the gender pay gap. It also suggests that having firm or ambitious university plans means higher GCSE grades too (compared to pupils with looser intentions).

Nikki Shure, one of the co-authors of the research, said the data found boys to be more ambitious than girls regardless of family income. That ambition often translated into attending higher-status universities and more lucrative careers, which may help explain the gender pay gap.
“The goal of this paper is not just to tell girls to be more ambitious, but to get young people to think about making concrete, specific university plans. Of course it is a good idea to foster high-attaining girls to be ambitious and provide them with the information and support to achieve these goals,” Shure said.
“It is interesting that a boy and a girl at the same school with the same prior attainment and same family background have substantially different university plans,” she said.
“Making more ambitious plans could help narrow the gap, but of course it is not going to eliminate the gender pay gap, given issues around different returns to different courses even at the same institution.”
The research team found a similar pattern among pupils who were immigrants or the children of immigrants, who were more likely to aim for selective universities than their classmates. “First- and second-generation immigrants are hence much more academically ambitious than their peers of British heritage, even when they are otherwise from a similar background, of similar academic ability, and attend the same school,” the paper states.
Shure said: “One of the main things that we want to highlight is that making a concrete goal matters for academic performance. The young people in this data set had to type out the name of the top three universities to which they plan to apply, which requires some agency and thought.
“We are definitely not saying that everyone needs to plan to apply to a Russell Group university, but rather make a concrete plan to which they can work.”

Brace yourself: Diana Beech (ex HEPI, ex-Universities Minister’s policy advisor) writes for Research Professional’s Sunday Reading reflecting on the last year of Parliament’s HE changes and anticipating what is still to come. Here are a couple of excerpts looking forward:

Questions nevertheless remain on what the government will do about newer institutions, which might not have the resources and reserves to weather the oncoming storm but that remain anchor institutions in their local communities—creating jobs, attracting investment and producing hugely employable and socially valuable, but not necessarily high-earning, graduates. Depending on location, letting institutions like these fail may not tally with pledges to ‘level up’ the regions. So there are sure to be major turf wars ahead if the government is intent on convincing the electorate that levelling up, in this instance, means siphoning some places off and levelling their opportunities down.
Other battlefields to watch out for could include…measures to engineer student choice towards subjects leading directly to a particular job—all of which we could see addressed in the long-awaited response to the Augar review due in the autumn.
The past 12 months have been turbulent for universities, and the political roller-coaster shows no signs of slowing yet. Higher education would do well to brace itself for further challenges and changes ahead.

And that’s what we think too Diana!

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

BU Research Blog

Tagged / degree classification

HE Policy Update for the w/e 28th January 2021

Online teaching continues

Parliamentary News

Research

Prevent

Industrial Strategy

Access & Participation

International

More on last week’s announcements

Students

2019/20 student statistics

Student Experience

Parliamentary Questions

Inquiries and Consultations

Other news

Subscribe!

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Research Information Network

UKRI

Tagged / degree classification

Online teaching continues

Parliamentary News

Research

Prevent

Industrial Strategy

Access & Participation

International

More on last week’s announcements

Students

2019/20 student statistics

Student Experience

Parliamentary Questions

Inquiries and Consultations

Other news

Subscribe!

Quality: Lower value courses

Post Qualification Admissions (PQA)

No. 10

Degree Classification Analysis

Research

Access & Participation

International

Future of post-16 Education

Student Fees petition – no blanket refund

NUS – calls for change

PQs

Inquiries and Consultations

Other news

Subscribe!

Spending Review

HE restructuring regime announced

Meanwhile over in FE…

Education Committee

Another ministerial speech

And the shadow minister speaks too

Admissions

NSS

Student Finance

Opportunity areas expansion

Devolved news: Wales

Civic engagement rankings

Public Attitudes to Science

Research

Disability

Degree Classifications

Nursing

PQs

Inquiries and Consultations

Recess

Other news

Subscribe!

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics

Research Information Network

UKRI