Mike and others who are interested:
Following my message last week regarding PUSH, I had discussions with John
Thompson of HEFCE regarding the progression rates mentioned below. It is
clear that the interest in wastage won't go away, so it should be in all
our interests to ensure that a sensible approach is taken. The way forward
seems to be to work with HEFCE to agree a method of calculating wastage or
progression rates. No system will be perfect but the PUSH approach is just
plain crazy. I too can't understand why they only produced figures for
some HEIs when HESA provided the same data for all.
You will have seen HESA's response to what has happened. Although it is
clearly not their fault if people do not take heed of their warnings, I am
concerned that knowing that PUSH wanted flunk rates, they provided more
information on individual HEIs than is currently published - namely the
intake with proposed length of course. One must question whether this has
done any of us, including HESA, any good - the only people to benefit are
PUSH, who have got lots of publicity. PUSH state that the 'figures were
obtained from HESA' giving an official source, the media say they were
obtained from PUSH, and nobody mentions that the use of the data was
invalid.
Whilst I fully support the use of HESA to provide national figures, thereby
saving us all a lot of work, care must be taken when providing individual
HEI figures to the media that are not already published. It would be
helpful if at least an email could be sent to all HEIs by HESA informing
them that this extra data has been requested.
Dennis Barrington-Light
Head of Student Records and Statistics
University of Cambridge, 10 Peas Hill, Cambridge CB2 3PN
Tel: 01223-332303 (Direct line) Fax: 01223-331200
Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> Apologies for cross-posting.
>
> Today's Electronic Telegraph (Mon 17 August) has a further article - I
> don't know if it's in the newspaper version.
>
> The Web reference is:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000202011865292&rtmo=Vx4wlxPx&atmo=9999
> 9999&P4_FOLLOW_ON=/98/8/17/nuni17.html&pg=/et/98/8/17/nuni17.html
>
> or since that's incredibly long, just use
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk
> and look under UK news. (There is a registration process for new
> 'readers').
>
> I'd probably be breaching some antiquarian copyright law if I posted the
> whole article, but the headline is "Universities are urged to admit
> their 'flunk' rates" and the gist is that the PUSH guide shows wide
> variations in so-called 'flunk' rates; cites five Universities at the
> bottom (Brighton, Portsmouth, Staffordshire, South Bank and Newcastle)
> along with quotes from representatives, such as 'ridiculous'
> (Portsmouth), 'silly' (Newcastle) and a defence of access by South Bank;
> says CVCP have condemned it, but quotes Alan Smithers as saying that
> 'the details were available' and should be published! The general line
> by education editor John Clare is that Universities should "come clean
> about failure and drop-out (sic) rates"
>
> No reference appears to be made yet in this debate to HEFCE Circular
> Letter 20/98 on progression rates (which is extremely pertinent for
> those of you who haven't seen it).
>
> Anyone know why despite the fact that the statistics are complete
> garbage, PUSH didn't calculate them for half the Universities? Some
> relief from stupidity I suppose, if somewhat inconsistent.
>
> Mike Milne-Picken
> Head of Planning
> University of Central Lancashire
> [log in to unmask]
> www.uclan.ac.uk/other/uso/plan/planhom.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
