I believe the survey sample did include students who did not have
insurance - that was asked by several people.
Natalya
On 27/03/17 23:22, John Conway wrote:
> I always surmised that if you ask an insurance company, most of their clients will be insuring a computer amongst their possessions, so surely it was a horribly biased sampling process?????
>
> With best wishes,
>
> John
>
> Dr John Conway
> Disability Officer
> Principal lecturer in soil science
> Programme manager, MSc Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security.
> Royal Agricultural University
> Cirencester, Glos GL7 6JS
>
>> On 27 Mar 2017, at 23:12, Natalya Dell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Debra,
>>
>> SLC released one of their SSINs http://www.practitioners.slc.co.uk/media/5962/ssin_0115_apr2014.pdf (the link in archives of this list is broken cos things "move location" a lot).
>>
>> On page 2 of that SSIN SLC say they based the £200 contribution on an Endsleigh survey carried out by the NUS.
>>
>> There was a lot of discussion on this list ~9th April 2014: Various members contacted SLC, Endsleigh and the NUS to try and find out more.
>>
>> I'll summarise what they posted:
>>
>> For the survey, students were contacted by email by the NUS and asked if they would allow marketing materials to be sent to them and asked if they had a laptop etc.
>>
>> Only 1704 students responded to it. There were £2,340,275 undergraduates and postgraduates registered for the 2012/2013 academic year. This means 0.072% of the year's student population responded. One poster said they were told surveyed students came from HEIs where Endsleigh got most business (aka more wealthy students!). Some vague info about the survey is at http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130724005816/en/Endsleigh-Students-%C2%A32000-Worth-Gadgets-Possessions-University#.U0Ul54XV6K0
>>
>> It seems that Endsleigh only requested this information for marketing, so it wasn't intended to be used in the way SLC used it. Various other comments were made about methodological weaknesses of the survey and how SLC used it. It is likely students with poorer IT access would be less likely to have responded to it.
>>
>> Make of that what you will.
>>
>> I do not know what challenges were made to SLC/BIS/Westminster-Gov at the time. Others here may know.
>>
>> Some HEIs offer grants for some/all students for the £200, but there are differing levels of "hoops" students have to jump through to get that. I don't know how many students find yet-another-task too much or even realise money is available! I don't know how many students avoid or delay taking up DSA computers due to the £200 or struggle to find the money.
>>
>> I think in the scheme of DSA changes it has got lost, as other factors have been perceived as more challenging for HEIs to respond to.
>>
>> Maybe someone needs to draft some Freedom of Information Act requests to HEIs and indeed SLC/DfE and post the findings here.
>>
>> Natalya
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 27/03/17 21:59, Debra Elliott wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> I'm currently researching DSAs and the recent reforms, specifically the £200 contribution that students are required to make when purchasing computers. I would be very grateful if anyone has any thoughts (or pearls of wisdom out there) to help answer the following query that I have:
>>>
>>> What evidence/statistics did the government (SLC) draw on to determine, and go ahead with, the £200 personal contribution?
>>>
>>> I've read the legislation, BIS reports/etc, grey literature and so on, but I still haven't unearthed any hard evidence to answer this question. I heard on the grapevine that insurance statistics may have been used by SLC to inform the governments decision (?) but I can't find anything to support this - and I have been digging around.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any comments they would be very appreciated.
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Debra.
>>>
|