AIC/15/20 Agenda item 12.3 21 May 2015 Additional places for Postgraduate Taught (PGT) provision This paper is to inform the Committee about the impact of the additional places SFC allocated for PGT in AY2013-14 and AY2014-15. As we continue to review these places, it outlines how successful the institutions were in their recruitment and retention and raises some access considerations. These places are not being filled in full and the demand suggested at the time of the bids does not appear to be as high as first suggested. Outcome Agreement Managers also report that many of the institutions are now marketing these places fairly rigorously to ensure they fill them. This makes an assessment of or consideration of access problematic. It also limits our ability to ask the institutions to focus the places more on widening access groups. That said the paper argues that the free fee that comes with these places should be used to at least encourage more students from a widening access background to consider postgraduate provision. Recommendations The Committee is asked to agree that: We should make our expectations for these places clearer We should encourage institutions to do more to ensure the places are available for all The SFC executive should continue to work with the Government and partners in defining widening access at a PGT level and to see what information could be included within PG applications to assess a student s background. Financial implications There are no direct financial implications although any amendment to future allocations might involve funding amendments. This would be highlighted to the Skills Committee and Council in time.
Additional places for Postgraduate Taught (PGT) provision Purpose 1. This paper is to inform the Committee about the impact of the additional places SFC allocated for PGT in AY2013-14 and AY2014-15. As we continue to review these places, it outlines how successful the institutions were in their recruitment and retention and raises some access considerations. Strategic Plan implications 2. This paper relates to Outcome 5: a developed workforce and Outcome 2: access for people from the widest possible range of backgrounds. Background 3. In 2012 Universities were invited to bid for additional places under the following four categories: Widening Access; Articulation; Skills for Growth: undergraduate; and Skills for Growth: postgraduate taught (hereafter referred to as PGT). SFC s ambition for the PGT places was to develop a highly-skilled workforce in line with the Scottish Government s vision of a knowledge-based economy. Demand for these places far out striped the budget having budgeted for 1000 places, we received bids for 2079 in AY2013-14, with some institutions asking for more in 2014-15. It was therefore decided that institutions would be asked to resubmit their bids. 4. The key criteria for the second round of proposals were for the courses to encourage academia industry (or other public or third sector bodies) links by supporting PGT provision that meets skills demands from the key sectors and for the places to be used to provide new courses designed with industry (or with other public or third sector bodies). Bids were also asked to potentially, offer opportunities for part-time study on modular programmes and one of the secondary criteria was that if the course would contribute to widening access, institutions were to say how this would be achieved. 5. It is therefore important to highlight that these places were not allocated for widening access purposes although, where possible, institutions were asked to say how the places could contribute to widening access. Indeed, there is still much discussion on what widening access to PGT means (see Chair s Business paper AIC 15/09).This paper therefore focuses on how successful the institutions were in their recruitment and retention to these places, whilst raising a number of issues in terms of access for consideration in developing SFC s access approach to HE beyond undergraduate and any requirements on universities for their use of these places from 2016-17 onwards from a widening access perspective. 6. We will continue to review these places to ascertain further their impact and will present the skills related recommendations to the Skills Committee in the 1
summer. Recruitment to the places 7. The places were allocated and have been used predominantly in Science, Engineering, Technology (SET) based disciplines: Engineering; Sciences (including Computer); Business and Administration; Veterinary Sciences, Agriculture and related subjects. In much smaller numbers some institutions received places in Creative arts and design; History and Philosophy and Communication. 8. In AY2013-14 SFC allocated 852 places in total. The institutions said they filled about 730 of these. Prior to allocation for AY2014-15 we discussed underrecruitment with the relevant institutions: Abertay, Edinburgh Napier, Glasgow and Strathclyde. They assured us that under-recruitment was due to the late allocation of the places for AY2013-14 and all had plans to enhance marketing to address recruitment in AY 2014-15. 9. In our Early Statistics Return (ESR) for AY 2014-15 we asked institutions whether they had filled the places. The results by institution are shown below. 2014-15 Early Statistics Return Use of additional funded places for taught postgraduate skills 2 Taught Postgraduate Institution Funded Enrolments Difference places FTE FTE FTE Aberdeen, University of 71.0 69.0-2.0 Abertay Dundee, University of 20.0 7.5-12.5 Dundee, University of 49.0 43.5-5.5 Edinburgh Napier University 24.0 6.0-18.0 Edinburgh, University of 92.0 92.0 - Glasgow Caledonian University 51.0 42.8-8.2 Glasgow School of Art 35.0 26.0-9.0 Glasgow, University of 124.0 122.3-1.7 Heriot-Watt University 70.0 70.0 - Highlands and Islands, University of the - - - The Open University in Scotland 30.0 - -30.0 Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh 27.0 27.0 - Robert Gordon University 50.0 50.0 - Royal Conservatoire of Scotland 24.0 2.0-22.0 SRUC 6.0 3.5-2.5 St Andrews, University of 27.0 26.0-1.0 Stirling, University of 42.0 41.0-1.0 Strathclyde, University of 85.0 63.7-21.3 West of Scotland, University of the 25.0 22.0-3.0 Total 852.0 714.3-137.7
10. This once again shows under-recruitment to the places. However, since the ESR was submitted, discussion between OAMs and the institutions with the largest gaps has confirmed that: Edinburgh Napier has now filled all of its places for 2014-15 across both their September and January intakes. Abertay: staff changes meant that they did not market the course as heavily in 2014-15 as the previous year and thus, the numbers are down. To overcome this for 2015-16 they have done the following and they expect to recruit the full 20 students: o Employed a new Marketing Manager and invested in promotional materials to promote the postgrad places in 2015-16 o Undertaken a direct targeted email campaign to over 600 suitable candidates o There is a new Head of School in the area that the places sit and they feel this will make a tremendous difference to their ability to make the target figure for 2015-16. Royal Conservatoire has agreed that they will give up 10 places in order to ramp up their provision over a 3-year period from 14 places in AY 2015-16 to 24 in AY2017-18. University of Strathclyde will give up 8 places permanently. Open University in Scotland did not appreciate the costs covered by the places due to significant organisational change during the period of recruitment. This led to them mistakenly relinquishing their places. Their Outcome Agreement Manager has agreed they can have the 18 places which are to be reallocated from other institutions for AY2015-16. 11. We are now entering the third year of all the additional places schemes. On the back of these discussions, Council agreed to embed 815 PGT places in core teaching funding for 2014-15 and allocated an additional 37 FTEs. In AY 2015-16 we will embed these additional 37 FTEs. We will not allocate any additional TPG places in 2015-16 but will reallocate the 18 places (10 from RCS and 8 from Strathclyde) that were given up in AY2014-15 to the Open University in Scotland as outlined above. SFC monitoring 12. Having now received HESA data for AY2013-14 we have attempted to see if the additional places SFC allocated to the sector are reflected in an overall increase 3
in Scottish-domiciled students. The headlines are that: Overall PGT places increased by 924 between AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. However, the increase of 924 included about 300 in controlled subjects for which no additional places were allocated Excluding controlled subjects, places increased by about 623 A rough mapping exercise aligning the subjects in which places were allocated with the probable HESA JACs code shows an increase of 436 places within the relevant subjects 13. We analysed the HESA record for each institution and where appropriate asked for their perspective on why their HESA record failed to replicate the increases we were hoping for. This will be partly explained by the huge difference in approach concerning eligibility in terms of domicile (see paragraph 16). We are therefore currently exploring what HESA tells us when we include EU and RUK students. It is also likely that in subjects where we are not seeing the expected increase, this could be (and indeed a number of institutions highlighted it was) because the increase has been offset by a decrease in another course under the same JACS heading. 14. In addition to asking institutions about their HESA record, we also asked for some qualitative information about their recruitment approaches, completion records and widening access approaches. The main themes emerging from their responses are outlined below. Recruitment approaches 15. Demand for these places varied across the sector and this is partly shown in the level of proactivity required by an institution in recruiting to them. Some indicate that no additional measures were taken to fill them, they were filled and contributed to overall growth of PGT numbers whilst others employed a range of innovative and additional measures, yet failed to fill them. This will be explained by a range of reasons, not least the reputation of an institution for postgraduate study. 16. Due to the short notice on the allocation of the places in 2013-14, many institutions adopted differing approaches to advertising between the first and second years of this scheme. 17. Aligned with our priorities to develop a highly skilled workforce, some good practice was highlighted in terms of using industry partners to assist with promotion and in highlighting the importance of the course in relation to skills shortages and good employment prospects. 18. A few institutions highlighted that their main marketing of the places was internally - to their current undergraduate students. One institution 4
highlighted how they made a particular effort to advertise them to their undergraduate students who came to university through an access route. In future, this institution will be contacting all undergraduate students who have joined the university through an access route in third year to alert them to their options for further study. The priority given to recruiting students from deprived backgrounds was however relatively low across the sector. This is explored in more detail later. 19. In considering the differences in recruitment approaches, it is important to highlight that there was a huge difference in approach concerning eligibility in terms of domicile. There are two connected issues firstly, SFC was unclear in AY 2013-14 about the eligibility of RUK students for SFC funded PGT places and secondly, EU students are eligible for all Scottish-domiciled places. On the first point, the criteria for being eligible for funding was amended for the 2014-15 session to exclude RUK taught postgraduates, however, institutions could justifiably have counted RUK taught postgraduates in their numbers of students eligible for funding in 2013-14. Whilst no institution has stated it explicitly, it might be assumed that some places will have gone to RUK students in AY2013-14. Secondly, it is clear that whilst some institutions sought to prioritise Scottish-domiciled students in their allocations and offered only a handful of EU places despite strong competition from EU applicants, others have allocated to Scottish and EU students on an equal footing. Indeed one institution seemed to indicate that their plans to recruit in future years would be through marketing internationally. Completion 20. Given the short term (largely year-long) nature of these courses, there were very few concerns raised about completion. However, the systems in place across the sector seem of variable quality to track students from PGT enrolment through to completion, let alone, if we are mindful of access indicators, from undergraduate to postgraduate. We should be mindful of this as we develop our approach to PGT any change in policy on widening access will require significant work to ensure institutional systems can track students. This will be particularly onerous for those institutions which have high numbers of PG students as they are, in general, also the ones which have higher numbers of students who completed their undergraduate elsewhere. Overview of widening access approaches 21. Aligned with the criteria for the places, we asked all institutions whether they knew if any of the places had been allocated to students who had entered undergraduate study through an access route and what they did to ensure anyone, regardless of financial circumstance, could access the places. The overarching comment is that responses, in general, were brief. This is 5
unsurprising given the relatively new status of this policy area for the Council and the limited focus it has been given traditionally across the sector. Whilst a number of reviews have been commissioned over the years, it is not one which has been prioritised by Government, by SFC or institutions. 22. The main themes to emerge from their responses: It was emphasised that there is currently no information contained on PG applications to enable an institution to assess an individual s background. It is possible to ascertain this when the student undertook their undergraduate degree at the same institution but even then it is not a straight forward process and not something that is routinely flagged. We were aware of this issue due to the current discussions around how to measure widening access at PGT study. Institutional responses indicated varied institutional perspectives on the issue. Institutions adopted a variety of approaches to ensuring anyone could access the places. Some used their standard entry processes and thus required applicants to mention their financial need in order to be prioritised for a place. Others combined these places with other scholarships and financial assistance procedures they already had in place to ensure a more targeted approach for those searching for assistance. Some institutions also mentioned access to other funds being supplied to support those in need during their study. There was limited information given on part-time and distance learning options within institutional responses, with those who did mention it highlighting that there was very limited take up of the distance options and most students were full-time. A number of institutions suggested that their marketing would be more focused next year, with some planning to target their undergraduate access students in recruiting to these places. Challenges in recruitment 23. A number of institutions noted that the application pool was small as the PGT market has become increasingly competitive. This is in part due to the work in England to understand WA to PGT and to provide support packages for access students to do postgrads, as well as the cheaper international fees. In addition, as many of the places were allocated within STEM, to support key sectors in these areas, recruitment was even more challenging as the pipeline of students is insufficient. 24. One institution highlighted that when the employment market picks up, less people opt to do PGT. Therefore whilst the places they allocated had been filled, other courses saw a drop in numbers students were therefore moved around rather than any additionality being evident. This was a sentiment 6
echoed by others. Another institution (who is not fully recruiting their places) suggested that an institution, especially smaller institutions, needed time to build up these places and we perhaps should have considered a model that ramped up the places over a three-year period. 25. SFC approved a number of changes to the programmes eligible in both years. This flexibility in approach has been welcomed by the sector, with some wishing we had enabled even greater flexibility (e.g. places to be allocated across broader subject areas, rather than particular courses). The success of the scheme 26. An overview of the success in terms of filling the places is given earlier and we will be doing further work before presenting recommendations to the Skills Committee. This section instead draws together an analysis of the preceding sections to reflect on the impact of the scheme in filling its key criteria of supporting PGT provision that meets skills demands from the key sectors and for offering opportunities for part-time study. 27. One institution summarised neatly what was apparent, implicitly, across the review: insofar as the scheme is intended to increase postgrad skills output in specific priority areas, this has been achieved, even if at the expense of other areas that were not targeted (but) the scheme seems to have a number of objectives including postgraduate skills in relatively specific targeted programmes, reducing/removing barriers for Scottish students for access to TPG, additionality of overall TPG numbers which may ideally be complementary, but may also be in tension or even competing. The relative priority of these objectives is not completely clear. 28. A few institutions highlighted that these places had served to mitigate a downward trend in Scottish-domiciled students that might otherwise have been significantly worse. It should be noted however, as the statement above highlights, that it is hard to judge whether these students would have been unable to undertake PGT study without the fee waiver. Risk assessment 29. These places were not allocated specifically for widening access and there is no clear definition of widening access at PGT level yet. There is a reputational risk to the Council if we ask the universities at this stage to use these places to widen access. On the other hand, having allocated these places we have an opportunity to consider what further role they might play in enabling anyone, regardless of financial situation, to access them, as again it is a reputational risk to the Council achieving its objectives if certain groups are underrepresented at 7
PGT level. Overall we assess the risk level to be low. Equality and diversity assessment 30. This review assessed the effectiveness of the postgraduate additional places to date. One of the issues outlined in this paper is that these places are not ring fenced and as such we cannot identify absolute students to each place. This makes an access or equality and diversity assessment very difficult if not impossible. However, the paper does attempt, through its feedback from institutions, to assess if we are achieving any access impact. 31. Despite these difficulties we still feel that it is crucially important to understand the diversity of the postgraduate population particularly in relation to any areas of under-representation for both the most advantaged and disadvantaged students. We will therefore take this forward with the Scottish Government (if possible) in relation to our wider consideration of access in relation to post graduate study. Recommendations 32. Whilst we will continue to review the places and take a more comprehensive analysis to the Skills Committee on how well the places fulfilled their original aim to improve skills by contributing to a highly developed workforce, the following conclusions and recommendations are suggested from a widening access perspective. 33. We ask that the Committee agree that: We should make our expectations for these places clearer not necessarily suggesting they are used in new ways, but emphasising the ambition for them to support Scottish-domiciled students (whilst recognising institutions cannot discriminate). Given that we are funding the fee element of these places, we should encourage (through our guidance and Outcome Agreement Managers) institutions to proactively recruit the places to students from a widening access background particularly to students in their third year who live in or are from the SIMD20 and SIMD40 areas. As although, we cannot provide living costs for these students it is suggested that the free fee is at least one less barrier to overcome. 34. The Committee is also asked for their advice in relation to the cost of living being the main barrier for potential post graduate students. 35. Whilst not directly related to these places, in terms of ensuring parity of access to PGT study we recommend: 8
The SFC executive should continue to work with the Government and partners in defining widening access at a PGT level and to see what information could be included within PG applications to assess a student s background. Financial implications 36. There are no direct financial implications although any amendment to future allocations might involve funding amendments. This would be highlighted to Council when making any decisions. Publication 37. This paper will be published on the Council website. Further information 38. Contact: Rachel Adamson, tel: 0131 313 6646, email: radamson@sfc.ac.uk 9