Carol,
I presume none of these issues (this and previous emails) affect us?
Is the document for signing comng over soone?
Best wishes
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Evans [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 June 2001 16:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HEFCE request to check HESA data supplied to the NAO
Notwithstanding all the very serious data issues, we are also
concerned that we are being asked to verify as 'appropriate for
use' data that, by HEFCE's own admission, does not yet include
data changes we have previously submitted to HEFCE as a result of
Circular 01/09 (HESA-HESES Recreate) or other data changes we
expect to make by this Friday [UNL extended deadline] in response
to Circular Letter 01/08 (PIs).
We asked HEFCE to confirm that the NAO would only get our data
once those amendments had been made, to which we have now
received clarification and confirmation that data will not go to
NAO until July. We have yet to agree that the data itself is
'appropriate' ...
Judy
----------------------
Judy Evans
Head of Management Information
University of North London
166-220 Holloway Road
London N7 8DB
tel : 020 7753 5146
fax : 020 7753 5120
email : [log in to unmask]
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:52:33 +0100 John Cooney <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> We have looked at the data and expressed our concerns to
> relevant colleagues.
>
> Our concerns are :
>
> The data includes all FT/PT students at UG level and not
> just FD. Students studying professional qualifications will
> be included. The professional bodies do not always release
> exam results to us so there is a danger these student may
> be treated inappropriately in the analysis. Similarly,
> progression on part-time FD is unlike FT and assumptions
> may be made about when students should complete.
>
> Dormant students are also included. What is to be done with
> them ?
>
> Students have been flagged to indicate whether they
> attract HEFCE funding premiums (part-time, disabled,
> postcode). We do not accept that this is a suitable basis
> for NAO analysis of completion and achievement. London
> institutions have already raised serious questions about
> the classifications used by HEFCE. What will happen
> when an NAO view is laid on top of the HEFCE.
>
> There are further mysterious flags 'tmc', 'spc', 'xelsp01'
> in the files and we have no idea what these represent and
> cannot verify them.
>
> The data is limited in timespan (only two years) and
> unsuitable for consideration of an institution's completion
> and achievement.
>
> We have had bad experiences with being asked to verify HESA
> data only to have the data subject to flawed analysis
> (e.g. broadsheet league tables). Our verification of the
> data has then been used to make it appear as if we agree
> with the analysis and conclusions.
>
> We have not been told what methodology will be used on the
> data. The NAO has the data third-hand and there are
> concerns whether this is appropriate for such a
> complex dataset and set of issues.
>
> ----------------------
> John Cooney
> Head of Planning and Resources
> London Guildhall University
> 133 Whitechapel High Street
> LONDON E1 7QA
> [log in to unmask]
> Phone - 020 7320 3481
> Fax - 020 7320 3487
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:58:00 +0100 Dennis Barrington-Light
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Apologies for cross-posting.
> >
> > Has anyone else checked the data supplied to institutions re
> the above? It is > difficult to know how to set about this but I
> have noticed that the dateleft > field in the file nindxxxx.csv
> is in the wrong order ie MM/DD/YYYY instead of > DD/MM/YYYY. I
> have raised this with HEFCE and they are looking at it. >
> > Has anyone else managed to do anything with these files? >
> > Dennis Barrington-Light > Head of Student Records and
> Statistics and > University Data Protection Officer
> > University of Cambridge, > 10 Peas Hill, Cambridge CB2 3PN, UK
> > Tel: +44(0)1223 332303 Fax: +44(0)1223 331200 > E-mail:
> [log in to unmask]
|