Clearing 2013: Are universities facing another bloodbath?

With A level results day fast approaching, universities across the UK are gearing up for the chaotic scramble to fill university places at this time of year. Last year, over 300 institutions and more than 55,700 students obtained their places in Clearing – 4,600 more than in 2011 – the highest recorded to date. Academics and administrators alike are busily clearing the way for Clearing – our only guarantee that we are not quite sure what to expect.

This year represents my 16^th anniversary of involvement with Clearing (17^th if you count the by association experience when my best friend went to university through Clearing back in 1988). It is undoubtedly my busiest thanks to the ever-changing landscape of HE being created as a result of higher fees and the Government’s core and margin policy to restrict and manage the number of students being recruited.

At Birmingham City University, the preparation for ‘Clearing’ started around three months ago, not least because the process of accepting or confirming students on places for undergraduate courses begins in earnest some months earlier than August.

There is a long-standing public misconception that Clearing is solely for A level students and as such begins on A level results day. The official UCAS process itself begins at the start of July and runs until September. It is true that the majority of those entering university hold A levels, however the proportion of the population entering holding A levels actually fell in 2012, while that of UK 18 year olds entering with BTECs increased and has risen by 80% since 2008. Research published in 2011 showed that more than half of 20 to 30-year-olds going on to higher education are BTEC students. Similarly, numbers studying the International Baccalaureate have been steadily rising. Results for the multitude of qualifications now accepted within entry requirements come out from as early as May onwards, enabling their recipients to confirm their places (as a number who attended our recent Open Day in June chose to do).

Clearing last year was described as a ‘bloodbath’. It was definitely a watershed moment: universities fell short of recruitment targets by almost 30,000 representing millions of pounds in lost fee income and a number of Russell Group universities were forced to enter Clearing for the first time, hit hardest by the reduction of AAB students (at this is point I stifle a wry smile, having worked in three post-92 universities that have always relied on Clearing). This created a ripple effect throughout the pecking order, though at BCU we managed to recruit one more student than in 2011.

There can be no doubt that lessons were learned; all universities have treated their recruitment for 2013 with a little caution and a lot more attention. At BCU, we are working harder than ever to ensure prospective students (and parents) recognise the benefits of what we have to offer as a university focused on creative and professional education and research. Our popularity continues with UCAS applications bucking national trends – up 13 compared to 3 per cent. Whether those applications will convert to students sufficient to meet our targets remains to be seen.

Members of staff in Education Liaison, Admissions and the Academic Faculties have already been liaising with our feeder schools and colleges to help secure places for those wanting to come to university this September. Meanwhile, large numbers of staff have been contributing to the preparation for the huge logistical operation that kicks in when universities receive A level results the weekend before results day. Like their counterparts up and down the country, our admissions staff will be working over this weekend in readiness for the communication to confirm places to students who have met their offers and do not need to enter the Clearing process. For those who have not secured or are seeking to change places, we open our Clearing hotline at 8am on August 15 and will have staff on site at five local colleges in Birmingham. We will also be running a dedicated Open Day on Saturday August 17 from 10am-2pm targeted specifically at students seeking to gain entry this September.

Last year, the University received almost 4,000 calls to the hotline and our course enquiries line on Results Day, while our central switchboard took 2,600 calls. This year we have taken the unprecedented step of recruiting and training over 40 staff from across the University to support marketing staff who have traditionally manned the lines.
Rumours abound that the “elite universities” are gearing up for Clearing too. Some have already taken the unusual (some might say risky) step of making unconditional offers based on predicted grades, while others are reportedly dropping their entry requirements substantially to ensure they recover student numbers. This effectively means that the ripple effect we saw during Clearing in 2012 may actually have already started – without many universities realising. Which students will be available in Clearing and with what grades is something of a mystery and some hotlines could turn out to be surprisingly quiet.

Media champions: Dumbing down or a savvy approach to modern research dissemination?

Growing up in a household with an academic now long since retired, whose aspirations were to achieve critical acclaim (and ideally more research funding) through peers, professional bodies and journals, brings into stark contrast the world in which I, his daughter, now operate. While these traditional ‘prestigious’ channels are still valid, it is apparent to me that blogging, tweeting, radio and the tabloid press have an equal – if not more important – role to play when it comes to highlighting the impact of academic research and investigation.

Nowhere was this more evident than when Birmingham City University celebrated its unique Media Champions training programme at the beginning of June. Channel 5’s Killers Behind Bars presenter Professor David Wilson, arguably the UK’s leading criminologist, joined Child Protection Expert and ITV journalist Mark Williams-Thomas, best known for exposing Jimmy Savile, to share an insight into the world of academic publishing as they know it. The session, hosted by the BBC’s Political Editor for the Midlands Patrick Burns, also featured up and coming academic Sophie Rowe. As a recently trained BCU Media Champion, Sohpie is about to embark on her PhD and will be combining both academic and media engagement tools from the start of her academic career.

Media Champions, recently short-listed in the 2013 Times Higher Education Leadership and Management Awards, is a unique partnership between the University’s Press Office, School of Media and Faculty academics. We use the experience, skills and knowledge of our Skillset-accredited School of Media to develop and deliver bespoke media training for our rising academic stars to equip them with the tools to promote their work more effectively through popular communication channels. Faculties nominate and pay for their staff development.

Past experience has taught me that the mere mention of a press release about academic research – in plain English – was enough to send shivers down the spine of many established academics, who felt that this form of ‘dumbing down’ was wholly inappropriate. Encouraging them to tweet, write blogs, record video diaries and speak to the likes of The Sun and Daily Mail would have appeared preposterous. Not so now.

As Sophie put it, if academics have something insightful and brilliant to say about current issues, it would seem a waste of both their talent and the opportunity to share such relevant research with a wider audience than simply those who read academic journals. An article in a national newspaper can reach thousands of individuals – more if it is picked up on twitter, as was the case with an article on US drone strikes in Pakistan by senior lecturer and terrorism expert Imran Awan.

 
Bringing academic research to a mass audience should not be seen as dumbing down, but as a means of ensuring that ordinary individuals – the people who vote in the politicians and have the strength in numbers to protest and force change – can learn more about issues (sometimes deliberately hidden) that affect their everyday lives.

For me, this is where the real impact of scholarly investigation lies. As traumatic and horrific as it has been, just look at the consequences and subsequent fall out of Mark’s investigation into Jimmy Savile. If the mass media had not picked up on the story in the way that it has, I wonder whether we would still be seeing the daily trickle of new charges and accusations or whether the victims would have continued to stay silent. As a result of the widespread publicity, which put considerable pressure on the BBC as well as the authorities, a line in the sand has now been drawn. Celebrities are as accountable as the rest of us; no matter what actor Jeremy Irons may think, there are no grades of abuse – abuse is abuse.

At BCU we have chosen to champion and support those academics who are willing to put themselves in a media spotlight. Unfortunately, as David has found, the public are as likely to comment on your appearance as they are your research. While Mark knows only too well that putting yourself out there will inevitably draw criticism, academics therefore need to steel themselves and not be deterred. For David, Mark, Sophie and all our media champions, the publicity that comes with the Media Champions programme is not an ego trip; it is not about achieving celebrity status, but is about finding ways of using academic context in a popular way.

If media and publicity can affect real change, as it has done in the case of the Savile investigation, then courting the journalists and acknowledging the reach of social media is surely a wise move. We may have to dumb down some of the terminology, but there’s nothing dumb in getting support and understanding from the masses – is there?

A competitive offa: How and who should track the effectiveness of outreach activities?

There is a growing debate within the Higher Education sector about the effectiveness of outreach activities in widening participation and whether this should be monitored at a national level. Just last week the 1994 Group called for the Government to start tracking university interventions through the National Pupil Database.

It’s a question we have been asking at Birmingham City University since last term when, for the first time, we had comprehensive data on full ‘lifecyle’ conversion from enquiry to enrolment. Having installed a professional enquiry management system in 2011, like many other universities we are now able to track the effectiveness of the full range of our recruitment activities – from telephone and email contact to master classes, taster days, UCAS fairs and Open Days.

BCU’s decision to hold an additional open day on Saturday February 23 appears to have paid off. So far, we have had over 1,500 prospective students register to attend, two-thirds of whom are intending to study this September. Many will just turn up on the day of course.

In terms of reach, Open Days are by far the biggest of our outreach activities – almost 6,000 prospective students visited us via that route in 2011/12. We also know that since the announcement of higher fees back in 2011, there has been a phenomenal increase in Open Day attendance. In the four-year period up to 2010, YouthSight research showed that over half all students attended no open days before handing in their UCAS form and a fifth would attend one open day. Yet by October 2011, the Guardian was already reporting a significant shift in behaviour with some universities reporting Open Day attendance up by 75% and many students visiting all five of their UCAS choices (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/university-open-days-soar).

Open Days are critical when it comes to educating prospective students about the benefits of Higher Education, albeit at a particular institution, and converting interest to application. The YouthSight 2012/13 Fact File found that a good first impression from universities’ open days was a major factor influencing university choice for over half of applicants. BCU’s research shows that 42% of those who attend an Open Day will go on to apply and around a quarter will eventually study with us.

As well as Open Day conversion rates, we know that roughly 20% of students who attended subject master classes in previous years went on to enrol at BCU and I can tell you the Faculty of Technology, Engineering and the Environment enjoys a 57% conversion rate from its Applicant Visit Days – the highest of our six Faculties. It sounds fairly impressive, but is it? What I don’t know is whether this level of conversion is competitive or even effective when compared to other similar universities.

There is very little shared information when it comes to benchmarking the success of not just Open Days, but the full range of outreach activities. Universities like BCU have been committed to widening participation since the outset and all institutions charging higher fees now have to outline their commitment to access to the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). To me, OFFA would seem to be a logical choice to take more of an active role in tracking success and publishing benchmarks, which will hopefully be the outcome of the shared strategy for widening access to HE currently under review. But their remit will be limited, likely only to cover the activities included within institutional Access Agreements. For a broader assessment of the full range of recruitment activities, maybe a professional body like CASE or the mission groups themselves need to step in on behalf of the marketing professionals. 

Given the huge investment that is being ploughed into outreach activities at an institutional level, coupled with the desire at a national level to increase participation rates in Higher Education, there is surely a need to monitor such activities more effectively. To me, it doesn’t matter who takes on the challenge…as long as someone does. It’s in everyone’s interest to make sure we are getting it right.

 

Bursaries and scholarships - an incentive or not?

At Birmingham City University, we are mid-way through our regular student number planning sessions to review recruitment targets for the coming cycle and to forecast the pattern in 2014/15 and beyond. In terms of the undergraduate market, as you would expect, we are considering the impact of fees, the emerging trends at subject level and the expansion to ABB of the Government’s core and margin policy. The question that is repeatedly coming up, however, is whether financial incentives have made any difference to our current offer or have the potential to do so.
 
It’s an interesting debate – and I don’t for one minute pretend to have the answers. It’s also one that requires a little clarity.

As a firm believer in the virtues of and rights to access Higher Education, I – like many – am of the view that there should always be financial support that is essentially needs-based and intended to ensure those who require additional financial support are not deterred from University on this basis alone. The National Scholarship Programme has a merit of its own that should not necessarily be linked to recruitment targets or bottom line.

The financial support I am questioning is that which is primarily recruitment driven – to win over particular cohorts to select a specific institution or discipline over and above other HEIs.

It’s a perfectly valid marketing tactic and one that pervades everyday life (‘BOGOF’ still amuses me). Back in November, the Telegraph reported a range of universities offering up to £10,000 to secure ABBs, including some on my patch (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9670355/Universities-paying-10000-to-sign-up-bright-students.html).

A review of BCU’s financial support for 2012/13 against that of competitors found ours to be fairly modest. We did not go down the route of offering large chunks of cash to secure higher performing students or win back numbers in Clearing. That said, we did not lose out on our AAB students (though numbers are fairly small) and our recruitment performance, as per the UCAS figures released earlier this month, was very good by comparison with many others. Our accepted applicant figures – according to UCAS – were up 1.8% on 2011/12 (the reality is that our enrolments after people withdrew or did not turn up were slightly down, but not by much).

Marketing logic tells me that we should be offering financial support packages that are at least on a par with our competitors. Yet I have to wonder that since we did not do this and, as it transpires, did not need to in 2012, would it really make commercial sense to increase the money we give out in future, if it’s potentially to students that would come to us anyway?

A survey of our own enquirers for 12/13 revealed that 60% said bursaries and scholarships were quite or very important, but 69% said they would not affect the students’ decision to apply. Market research released by dh insight this month based on a small sample of Year 13 students predicted As and Bs found little awareness of financial incentives and that it was essentially considered “a nice add on” rather than being a critical part of the decision-making process. Similarly, the Institute of Fiscal Studies reported last November that the uncertainty of the whole process which means that students often do not know what bursaries and scholarships they would be eventually awarded prior to making their application (and often after enrolment) meant that it made little or no difference to their decision.

The issue I have is that much of this research that exists is based purely on student opinions. Unfortunately, we know that what people say and what they do aren’t always the same. Not many students said they would pay fees of up to £9,000, but over 400,000 did and many more intend to do so; UCAS applications for 2013 are up about 3% to date.

I would like to see some robust market research that analyses the support offered at particular HEIs against their actual recruitment, particularly those that did very well in securing AABs and the additional student numbers they were awarded.

So, the question remains…should universities be seeking to provide a competitive market offer when it comes to financial incentives or should they trust that the broader academic offer will be sufficient to recruit the numbers they desire? What's your view?

Rejecting the criticism of a 'calm down dear' attitude to Clearing

The articles and blogs on Clearing have gone into overdrive, as you’d expect at this time of year. However, I was more than a little rattled to read one Guardian Professional article which rather patronisingly told universities: “It is vitally important for university leaders to abandon the 'calm down dear' narrative on admissions and show a proper sensitivity to the pain and stress that will be experienced by many individuals who have missed AAB grades in the coming weeks.”

I think it’s fair to say that within the sector, we are all very aware of the chaos that we were facing due to the Government policies on AAB, the cap and higher fees. Most universities have a ban on leave for the staff who will be front line in the Clearing process – senior managers, admissions, academics and marketing staff. And, rest assured, there will be numerous universities who will be only too willing to take students who just miss out on AAB – many right on the doorstep of the universities they were originally considering. The reality is that no university is going to want to fall short on its student number targets – even Russell Group universities.

Having worked at four universities, I have witnessed numerous examples of the stress and panic that occurs in Clearing. Last year, BCU took 10,000 calls across the University on Results Day and in the first two hours of Clearing, we’d already taken over 1,000 calls to the Clearing hotline. I’ve seen students so desperate they ask for any course that will accept them with the points they have and parents who refuse to get off the line because there is no course we can offer their child.

The universities I have worked at go to great lengths to provide sensitive and often impartial advice and guidance to ensure prospective students make the right choice for them. Telling people to remain calm is a crucial part of the advice, yes, but there’s far more to it than that. Just take a look at BCU’s six Clearing video guides – http://www.bcu.ac.uk/student-info/clearing/what-is-clearing There’s no pressure to come to Birmingham City, it’s all about giving sensible, practical advice to help students make the right decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

It’s a well-known fact that students who come through Clearing to a university or course they have never previously considered are far more likely to request a transfer to another course, another university or, worse still, drop out. This is in nobody’s best interests, least of all, the students themselves.

Don’t be guided to make your decision based on a knee-jerk reaction, the first place you are offered or a cheap financial incentive. Stay true to your original intentions and think carefully about the career you hope to have, the courses that could lead to it and the type and location of the university you want to attend. Better still, try and visit any university you are considering afresh – most will be holding dedicated open days or will be prepared to give you a guided individual tour. And, yes, don’t panic.

Is the printed prospectus dead?

The subject of countless opinion pieces and conferences – rearing its head only yesterday at HEERA's Training Day – the debate about the future of the printed prospectus has been raging for well over a decade. And, given that over three-quarters of UK households now have internet access and with technological advances offering far cheaper, targeted and more sophisticated information solutions, I have for some time been championing the cause to move away from this expensive and inefficient medium (the printed content becomes out of date as soon as it hits the presses).

Back in 1999, while working at the University of Wolverhampton, I led the development – unique at that point – of a University Preview Guide and individual course leaflets, printing a full Course Handbook as a back-up for UCAS Fairs and school/college libraries. Designed to dramatically reduce print and postage costs and provide more tailored, in-depth course information, the Preview Guide and accompanying course leaflets were very well received...so much so that eager prospective students rang us back and asked us to send them the full prospectus.

Thankfully, with a Course Handbook already prepared and waiting in the wings, the only thing damaged was my pride and the Department’s budgets, which took a slightly bigger hit than we’d anticipated from the postage. The market was clearly not ready to give up on the traditional prospectus; I was convinced we were simply ahead of our time.

I watched as the digital revolution, which had gathered pace following the public launch of the world wide web in 1992, opened up a major new channel of communication, full of increasing opportunity for the Higher Education sector. In 2004, UCAS ditched its paper-based systems for online applications for 2006 entry. In 2005, the Internet population reached one billion (it would double by 2010). The same year UCAS launched its web-based ‘Track’service for applicants to find out whether following results their university place was confirmed or they were eligible for Clearing. Within the first hour 60,000 applicants had used the service and by midnight on August 18, 2005, there had been 271,821 logins.

In 2006, now working at the University of Northampton, conscious of the spiralling costs of producing 75,000 prospectuses and mailing out 25,000 with postage costs then of over£50K, I decided to investigate the possibility of producing a mini guide supported by a CD-Rom/DVD alongside the website. The statistics seemed to back up my long-held convictions. The 2006 Hobsons’ School Leaver Review confirmed what was becoming clear, namely that university websites were gaining importance and influence. Websites were jointly favoured with prospectuses by the 12,300 sample as the most frequently used information resource for school-leavers. The number of British adults aged 15 and over using the Internet at home had just broken the 25 million barrier for the first time with the total number of people using the Internet from any location reaching almost 28m or 59% of the adult population.

However, once bitten, twice shy. The idea was soon put on hold when we tested it with our own prospective students – two-thirds of which still wanted to receive a printed prospectus…and a CD-Rom.

Roll forward another four years, the world and I had moved on yet again. Universities had begun investing heavily in their websites. In November 2010, the Telegraph highlighted eight universities – Hertfordshire, Cranfield, Robert Gordon, London Business School, University of Wales, Imperial College London and Leeds – who had each spent between £100K and 280K on one-off redesigns. Birmingham City University had re-launched its own website in 2010 at similar costs and visits to the home page rose 42% between 2009 and 2010.

In 2009, Birmingham City University had launched an ‘Essential Guide’ of information about the University supported by a series of subject prospectuses. This was based on research with prospective students conducted in 2008 who had indicated a strong desire for more subject-based information with lack of course information being the main criticism of the traditional prospectus approach.

Though effective, the subject prospectuses were very expensive – printing costs alone were almost double that of the traditional approach, the postage and fulfilment costs were also significantly higher. Feedback about the Essential Guide was very positive – it was seen as“parent friendly”, “academic yet vibrant and confident”. Further research with prospective students suggested that 45% believed it was ‘very important’ to have access to a printed prospectus, but 48% said it wasn’t essential, many viewing a traditional prospectus as “a waste of paper”. I felt my time had come at last.

So, in early 2011, BCU took the bold decision to do away with prospectuses, making do with the Essential Guide and diverting funds to invest more heavily in our website, social media and electronic communications. A decision reaffirmed by the findings of the 2010/11 Higher Expectations Report, which confirmed that university websites had now overtaken prospectuses to become the most popular source used by prospective students to find out information (cited by 79% compared with 63% for prospectus),

The appointment of a dedicated Social Media Officer and Web Marketing Manager resulted in a massive increase in online engagement. Twitter followers doubled to over 2,000 (we now have 4,921), facebook membership grew from 1,723 to over 3,000 (we now have 7,383) and visitors to the BCU website increased year on year from 1.8m in 2009 to 3.3m in 2011.

The popularity of the University continued to grow – our applications peaked at 28,559 in 2011 (from 13,854 in 2008 and 14% higher than 2010). We maintained our full-time home undergraduate student numbers, while growing postgraduate slightly.

But as the year progressed we noticed a marked decline in the number of requests for the Essential Guide – down 17.5%. Conscious of the smaller pool of prospective undergraduate students and the increasing competition facing us in September 2012, we decided to investigate this further by surveying over 200 prospective and current students.

Feedback about the Essential Guide remained very positive – 81% of current students and 87% of prospective students rated it as good/very good. So too was feedback about web content – 92% of prospective students and 91% of current students rated it as good/very good. However, when asked directly about whether or not they supported the strategy of having course information online views were mixed. While 62% of prospective students were happy to view course information on the web, 38% were not. In fact, a fifth of prospective students stated they had not gone on to view course information on the web.

For me, it was game over. My paper-based nemesis had forced me to swallow my pride once again and reverse a literature strategy I have spearheaded for the last 13 years.

The traditional print prospectus hit the UCAS Fairs in April – as well as enhanced e-communications. A revamped courses website (complete with commerce-style 'save' course feature) will go ‘live’ next month. We launched our enquiry management CRM system in November 2011 and are now sending prospective students and applicants 18 monthly subject-specific e-newsletters.

Pickle Jar Communications once questioned whether the on-going demand for the printed prospectus is down to the fact they are considered “the norm and therefore remain the core item in the student marketing process”. This may well be true. I can only hope that I will live to see the day when I no longer have to produce a printed prospectus, but for the time being I think it would be a very brave – or stupid – Director of Marketing to ignore the wishes (perceived or genuine) of almost two-fifths of their potential paying customers. But do you agree?

On the right track?

“The pressure is on institutions to raise their game” - these were the opening remarks at the fifth annual conference on Enhancing the Student Experience in London this week.

Professor Michael Farthing, Chair of the 1994 Group and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex, opened the conference by noting that with the changes in the sector over the last 12 months and the tripling of fees, “students now have the highest ever expectations and we are all going to have to work much harder to make the case for investing in higher education.”

As we approach the anniversary of the Government’s decision to support the rise in tuition fees, he pointed out that raising fees offered the only answer to the Government’s 80% cuts in university funding to enable universities to maintain let alone make improvements to the student experience, but reflected that the speed of the change was too much asking: “What else has tripled in price?”

Professor Farthing warned universities to avoid falling into the trap of reducing HE to “a set of transactions”, which he felt “grossly underestimates the value of HE”. He said that students were more than consumers purchasing a degree certificate and that “the student experience draws on every aspect of life and work and is long lasting” with “students immersing themselves in an academic environment, joining new social networks and gaining insights that will stay with them throughout their lives.”

I agreed with much of the sentiment of Professor Farthing’s address. What I took issue with were his comments that “research intensive universities offer the best teaching experience” where students are taught by the people who write the text books and have “access to a culture of innovation“. Given the institutions he represents, his perspective is to be expected, but I think that his own view underestimates the value of HE in the many other types of institution that are not research intensive. (And, yes, having spent a career working mostly in universities that are not research intensive, with a father who lectured in a former Polytechnic, my perspective is also to be expected).

Don’t get me wrong, research does have a critical role: it is a fundamental part of academia and greatly benefits our society and economy. When that research can inform and enhance teaching, students undoubtedly benefit - they have an opportunity to shape, learn from and experience new ideas. But research is not the only means of generating a good (or indeed the best student experience) or a culture of innovation: it can be achieved through other aspects in the broader learning and teaching experience - student partnership, engagement with industry/the professions, development of employability skills and so on. To suggest otherwise is somewhat of an injustice.

By far the majority of the conference chose to focus on student partnership as a means of improving the student experience. Liam Burns, President of the National Union of Students, said that there needed to be “a redistribution of power” and that engagement with students needed to be part of what drives the system. Student consultation does already exist in universities with student representation on most key committees, but I liked his idea of students taking an active role in agreeing the strategic direction and planning of universities with a voice in all key decisions and co-sign-off of strategic documents.

I was delighted when Sean Mackney, Deputy Chief Executive of the Higher Education Academy, pulled out BCU’s Student Partnership Scheme, which pairs up students with academics to improve the learning experience, as a best practice example of "continuous student engagement in an institution that's committed to continuous improvement in its learning and teaching". See http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/evidencenet/Creating_the_learning_community_through_student_academic_partners He’s not alone in his views - the scheme won the 2010 Times Higher Education Outstanding Support for Students Award.

Sean too acknowledged the need for a change in the power relationships between students and staff with a “sharing of power” that sees “students take responsibility for learning and universities involving them as a member of the learning community”. Describing this scenario as adding challenge and vibrancy to the relationship, he explained: “Students learn better when they are actively engaged with the curriculum, co-curricular activity and the University itself”.

Though we have world-leading and world-class research in Art and Design, Music, English, Social Work and Social Policy and Administration, Birmingham City University is not a research intensive university. However, we have an award-winning Student Academic Partnership scheme that is now being expanded as part of a Change Academy project. We recently employed our outgoing President of the Students’ Union to review student communications as part of enhancing the student experience. And the second objective of our new Corporate Plan is: “To be an exemplar for student engagement, working in partnership with students to create and deliver an excellent university experience and achieve high levels of student satisfaction and graduate employment.”

The pressure is on and, like many universities, we’ve got a long way to go. But I think we’re on the right track when it comes to developing and delivering the best student experience.

Don’t let fees put you off…

You can still afford to go to University. That was the resounding message from the panel of experts at Birmingham’s launch of National Student Finance Day today.

The local event, spearheaded and hosted by Birmingham City University, was attended by over 80 teachers, parents and pupils from seven of the region’s schools and colleges. Events are being held up and down the country as part of the first ever National Student Finance Day, which has been initiated by the Independent Taskforce on Student Finance.

Former NUS Presidents Aaron Porter and Wes Streeting joined Birmingham City University Vice-Chancellor Professor David Tidmarsh, Aston University Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Helen Higson, University of Birmingham Guild President Mark Harrop and BCU’s Director of Student Services Pamela Bell-Ashe to share their views on the new system of student finance to be implemented in 2012.

Wes Streeting, Deputy Head of the Independent Taskforce on Student Finance, announced a raft of new information, including a mobile phone app ‘unifees2012‘, with helpful hints and plain-speaking guidance on student finances now available at www.unifees2012.com.

The main advice given to the audience was to ’do your homework’ when you are considering university - to find out as much information as possible from the universities themselves, from the many user review websites and sources like moneysavingexpert.com. Aaron Porter was quick to stress that “visiting universities is the best way to get a sense of whether going to university is the right decision for you”.

A quick straw poll of the audience by David Tidmarsh, whose daughter is in the process of applying to university, revealed that there are a number of individuals who feel uncertain about the new finance arrangements and as such are having second thoughts about university. David summed up the panel’s feelings when he said it would be a terrible shame if people were put off going to university because of the cost, not only for the individuals themselves, but also because of the serious impact it will have on the country’s economy and skills capabilities.

Aaron felt that the natural ‘complexity’ of the funding arrangements was to blame for the confusion and misunderstanding. Research conducted recently by the Independent Taskforce found that 59% of people in England have little or no understanding of the new fee arrangements. One college said that many of its students were now giving real consideration as to whether or not to go to university because of the rising cost.

Mark Harrop viewed this tendency towards greater consideration as one of the positives of the changes to the system. He said that individuals are more likely to spend more time researching their options to find the course and the university that is right for them, which can only be a good thing. Helen Higson felt that another positive would be the focus by universities in delivering better teaching and learning and providing more financial incentives to help those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.

Speaking about the practicalities of the new student finance arrangements, Wes noted that “students under the new regime will actually pay less in monthly repayments than students currently do now”. He relayed some of the key facts of the new system - that students don't have to pay anything up front, they will only start repaying when they are earning above £21,000 and will then only pay 9% of anything over £21,000. He pointed out that the debt is written off after 30 years and that the monthly repayments are the same regardless of whether the tuition fee is £6,000 or £9,000.

One prospective student raised concerns about the size of debt that would be accrued. Wes acknowledged that if fees were higher and the debt was therefore larger, students would be paying it off over a longer period of time, but he re-iterated the fact that the debt is wiped out after 30 years. David added that this is where 'value for money' comes into the equasion; students should be looking at what they are getting for the different fees being charged.

Another concern from the audience related to portraying the value of Higher Education over a lifetime. One college tutor, who is a strong advocate of university education, shared his own experience of leaving school with two GCSEs and now being in his fifties with a son who, by comparison, has recently graduated and is now earning £30 per hour, which is more than he has ever earned. “I wish I’d known then what I know now” were his words of advice to the many prospective students in the room.

Answering the question of value, Aaron explained that the standard figures given are that graduates will on average earn around £100,000 more than their non-graduate counterparts over a career, but for some professions, such as doctors or lawyers, the sums are even greater. Wes added that while there has been much publicity about unemployment, it is important to remember that while there is 20% youth unemployment, the outlook for graduates is actually more positive with around 10% unemployment for those aged 21 and over. “There’s never been a better time to be in education or training,” he advised, though he did stress that this didn’t just mean a university education and that young people should consider other options, like college or apprenticeships.

There was concern raised about the fact that some universities are seeking to change their fees and how individuals would be able to find out which universities were doing this. Aaron said that he was working with the Office of Fair Access, which was currently considering how best to relay the information without providing an unfair advantage to those universities who will effectively be announcing their fees for a second time. Helen also pointed out that universities will not be able to disadvantage students when changing their fees.

One prospective student raised the issue of studying abroad with many universities in Europe offering substantially lower fees. Pamela said that those considering studying abroad should do their research in the same way they would if they were looking at a British university - to make sure the course is taught in English, to investigate the teaching and learning quality and so on. David added that if prospective students are looking at European universities they should be asking how many students usually complete their studies and the time it takes to complete study as this is often longer in Europe.

Understanding whether fee arrangements will change once a student begins studying was one parent’s primary concern. Pamela pointed out the fee regime under which student first enter higher education will remain throughout their studies. Other than inflationary rises, the cost will not increase substantially and the same financial regulations will apply throughout the duration of study.

And finally the point was made that universities are fairly good at targeting prospective students with information, but that it is parents and teachers who have a real influence over the end decision. One parent was worried that if parents or teachers don’t fully understand the implications of the new fee system, they could deter individuals from going to university because of the worry of debt. Helen said that in Birmingham four of the universities have teamed up to ensure that the work of Aimhigher continues which provides information and activities to schools and colleges. She added that most universities already work with schools and colleges and are increasingly providing tailored information for parents too. Parents were urged to visit the university websites; Birmingham City University offers a Parents’ Guide (see
http://www.bcu.ac.uk/_media/docs/Parents-Guide-2011-spr.pdf)

　

An unexpected resurrection on Halloween

It was probably rather fitting that the much anticipated UCAS Admissions Review consultation paper was officially published on All Hallow’s Eve. On a day which traditionally honours the dead, the main thrust of the recommendations appear to simply resurrect the concept of post-qualification application - though UCAS refers to ‘post-results application’.

Post-qualification application is by no means a new concept. It was a key recommendation of the 1997 Dearing Report, which noted that admission to an institution based on actual achievement rather than predicted results “would assist students since they know more about their abilities (and possibly their interests) having received their examination results and having studied for longer.” Mentioned again as part of an enquiry into A-Level grading back in 2002 by educationalist Sir Michael Tomlinson, it went on to rear its head in Professor Steven Schwartz’ Fair Admission to Higher Education report two years later.

I have to admit to being rather surprised at this latest review (though I may have been alone in this) having attended a presentation with my marketing director peers back in June when the clear being message given by UCAS was that post qualification application was favoured by neither universities or applicants.

Just four months ago, we were told that universities were concerned “that a PQA system with compressed timescales would inevitably lead to a more mechanistic approach with greater emphasis being placed on qualifications held rather than future potential - undermining efforts around the use of contextual information and mitigating against applicants who have just fallen short of their grades.” Universities had indicated shorter timescales would “also create difficulties for admissions to the most selective courses where most, if not all, applicants will have excellent exam results” and had “concerns that within a PQA system, applicants who meet the minimum entry requirements for a course might expect to be admitted.”

UCAS informed us that schools and applicants were sceptical that there would be enough time for the whole admissions process to take place between exam results and the start of the HEI term, saying “students would need to make their application as well as arrange university accommodation during this short window. Some may also need to attend university interviews and/or take additional tests.“ In its research, UCAS found only 10% of respondents thought there was too much time between applying to university and actually going, while only 2% think there is too much time for researching choices.

Most ironic of all, UCAS advised then that “the application period could be extended, but neither earlier exam results (and therefore earlier exams) nor later academic term start dates appeal to schools and applicants.” A little odd then, that this is pretty much what they have gone on to recommend. From my perspective, nothing much has changed - other than the increasing pressure being placed on universities because of reduced funding, downward application trends in both home and international markets and a future of staggered fee payments.

In fairness to UCAS, it has embarked on an impossible task. I think we all agree that the current system of application has its problems. It is based on predicted grades which are more likely to be incorrect. A study of the 2009 UCAS admissions process for BIS found only 52% of predicted grades were accurate and when looking at groups of results for individual applicants, fewer that 10% of applicants have three accurate predictions.

We all accept that there are plenty of inefficiencies within the current system: insurance offers don’t really work, processing applications for five choices is an extremely cumbersome and labour intensive process for both UCAS and universities, and Clearing is stressful and confusing. That said, despite all of its problems, for the majority of applicants, it does work; there are plenty of comments from students in response to news stories who say exactly that.

For me, while post-results/qualification application would resolve the issue of grading accuracy, it creates plenty of others. Putting the impact and cost of changing exam and term dates aside, I simply cannot see how universities could develop a workable solution which compresses the bulk of applications (with accompanying interviews, portfolio submissions and auditions) into a three-month period between the end of June and beginning of October.

Post-qualification application is an important issue and one that deserves full consideration. Whatever the outcome of the UCAS review, it is clear that PQA - described by education ministers as “difficult and contentious” back in 2005 - remains so six years on.