 |
 |
PS Does anyone have a view as to how (if at all) the new policy can be policed? Implementation requires that Universities are able to establish a student's highest qualification on entry to a programme of study. However, it is one thing to ask students to provide evidence of qualifications that they claim to have but an entirely different matter to prove that someone who claims not to have a qualification does in fact have one! Colleagues in HESA tell me that their database is not designed, or suitable, for obtaining info on prior qualifications. How then can it be done? Martin. Martin Watkinson Director of Strategy The Open University Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA Tel: 01908.653211 ________________________________ From: M.A.Watkinson Sent: 15 October 2007 17:32 To: 'Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities' Subject: RE: HEFCE consultation on ELQs Hi Mike and others The 'unknown level' category is fraught with difficulties, mainly because these codes are being used for purposes for which they are not intended. First, there is no basis for assuming that some of these qualifications are of HE level (esp codes 56, 93, and 99). Second, even when an HE equivalence is known or can be assumed, there is no basis for assuming that a given proportion of such students are studying an ELQ and should therefore be rendered unfundable (eg an equally valid assumption would be that students with codes 21 and 22 would have cited an existing HE qualification if they had one). Third, even where an HE equivalent qualification is known or assumed, it cannot be assumed that the student had acquired it with support from public funds (esp a student holding a professional qualification). Finally, since students and staff have not been told that financial consequences rest on their choice of code, there is no certainty that the coding system has been used accurately. For all these reasons, it would be safer and reasonable to dispense with the 'unknown level' category (apart possibly from code 99) and treat all these students as 'other' and therefore fundable. Martin. Martin Watkinson Director of Strategy The Open University Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA Tel: 01908.653211 ________________________________ From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Milne-Picken Sent: 15 October 2007 11:44 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: HEFCE consultation on ELQs I'm still only part way working through our data, but one thing I did notice that troubled me is in the Explanatory Notes, Table 3 of Appendix A pages 17-18, that gives the mapping of Highest Qualification on Entry onto the categorisation of each course. Code 93 'Mature student admitted on basis of previous experience (without formal APEL/APL) and/or institution's own entrance examinations' is mapped onto 'Unknown Level' categorisation (page 18). We have hundreds of these, particularly on professional courses like youth work where there will be a formal interview and admission process for mature entrants (including CRB checking etc), but where we do not demand formal A level equivalent qualifications. Code 56 - 'other non-advanced qualifications' is also given the categorisation 'unknown'. We have lots of these too. An example would be a student who has CACHE childcare diploma or certificate (formerly NNEB). [ As a college that has historically had a large number of FE students on childcare courses, many of whom progress to HE in a range of disciplines , we have lots of this particular qual, and plenty of others like it. ] It seems wrong that they are treated as 'unknown' rather than 'other', since by definition they must be below the equivalence of a first degree. (Code 28 'professional qualifications' is also 'unknown' though we don't have any of these, and must have used other codes instead , as it is so ambiguous). We also have a high proportion of 99's, which are not ice creams with a flake beloved by children, but are the genuine 'unknowns', ie where we haven't got round to coding it at enrolment because we have other pressing priorities but our MIS people need to get the data cleared through the validation process so they default it to 99 - unknown . ;-) HEFCE are pro rata-ing those in the 'unknown level' categorisation in the same proportion as the knowns (para 16 Appendix A page 24). (Shades of Donald Rumsfeld's famous dictum here ...) As I understand it, this means, hypothetically, that if you have a vocational/professional degree course (say) like youth work, of 60 students in which one student already has a first degree (ie on an ELQ), typically in our experience from 25 years ago in a discipline not relevant to a modern vocational and skills curriculum ... but that's another story , 2 students have A levels gained some time in the last couple of decades, 30 have been admitted under code 93 by formal interview, 10 have other non-advanced qualifications such as NNEB/CACHE diplomas and certificates, and 17 have unknown qualifications which you did not pick up at enrolment, and didn't bother to translate into O levels etc ... HEFCE will calculate that you have 20 ELQ students, not 1. However switch one of the students with A levels to an exactly equivalent CACHE Level 3 diploma (which is so equivalent it is now on the UCAS tariff by the way) and you will find that where you thought you only had 1 ELQ, you now have ... 30 ELQ students ... and have just lost £150,000 of grant instead of £5,000! It's an extreme, exagerated example I know, but some of our courses are looking closer to this than you might think! It's worth checking out pages 17 and 18 very carefully in my experience, especially if like us you have a very diverse intake base with a wide range of non-standard qualifications and you're not sure who's been coding them and how they've decided which codes to use. Not that there's an administrative burden in being a WP institution of course ... shudder at the thought! Mike Milne-Picken Bradford College Email from Bradford College is subject to a disclaimer, the full contents of which are available for viewing at the following link: http://www.bradfordcollege.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer.htm