Assessment of access and retention record. The University of Bristol is a highly selective, research-intensive University. For entry in October 2010, we received an average of 10.2 home applications for every place (with some programmes receiving as many as 40 applications per place). The average UCAS tariff score of our 2010 entrants was 478.5 (the equivalent of 3.9 A grade ‘A’ Level passes). By contrast, average secondary attainment in the Bristol area is among the poorest in England, with an average QCA tariff score of 679.6 per student (the equivalent of 3.2 C grade ‘A’ Level passes), compared with the English average of 744.8 per student (NB the UCAS tariff and QCA tariffs are not calculated on the same basis so cannot be directly compared with each other4). Beyond the Bristol area, the University draws its students primarily from the south of England, where average income levels are relatively high. These characteristics create some very specific challenges when it comes to diversifying our own student intake (as opposed to playing our part in raising student aspirations and widening participation in Higher Education more generally). Given this context, the University of Bristol’s strategy for Widening Participation has been deliberately built around a combination of aspiration- and attainment-raising activity in local schools (often undertaken in collaboration with other local HE providers and designed primarily to widen participation in the Higher Education sector generally); more targeted activities, designed to attract the most able students to Bristol and a contextualised approach to admissions, which ensures that poor school performance is taken into account when selection decisions are made. Despite this very comprehensive and well-established approach, the University of Bristol has had only limited success in realising its ambitions in the area of widening participation. (Detailed data are provided at Appendix Two.) Over the three year period from 2008/09 to 2010/11, the proportion of applications from under-represented groups has increased in only three categories (mature students; disabled students and students from low participation neighbourhoods) with the proportion of applications from all other categories (students from low performing schools; socio-economic groups 4-7; minority ethnic groups and local postcodes) declining. Over the same period, progress in diversifying the University’s undergraduate intake has followed a similar pattern, with small improvements in only three c...
Assessment of access and retention record. The assessment of the University’s expenditure on additional access and retention measures was based on the analysis of absolute and relative performance in key HESA widening participation performance indicators. Benchmarks rather than comparisons with the overall sector average were used to compare our performance indicators with the sector average, because benchmarks take account of the University’s subject and entry qualification profile1. Assessment of expenditure on additional student success measures was also based on an analysis of HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Survey (DLHE) data.
Assessment of access and retention record. UCS has a high proportion of under-represented students and on this basis plans to spend 15% of the fee it charges above £6,000 per FTE on additional access and retention measures, in addition to the level of expenditure under UCS’ existing Access Agreement. This assessment is based on the following measures and indicators: 43% of UCS students are from lower-socio economic groups (4,5,6,7) (HESA data 08/09)
Assessment of access and retention record. The University of Bristol is a highly selective, research-intensive University. For entry in October 2011, we received an average of 10.6 home applications for every place (with some programmes receiving over 30 applications per place). The average UCAS tariff score of our 2011 entrants was 489.7 (the equivalent of 4 A grade ‘A’ Level passes). By contrast, average secondary attainment in the Bristol area is among the poorest in England, with an average NQF/QCF tariff score of 685.5 per student (the equivalent of 3.2 C grade ‘A’ Level passes), compared with the English average of 728.3 per student (NB the UCAS tariff and NQF/QCF tariffs are not calculated on the same basis so cannot be directly compared with each other4). A recent feasibility study, undertaken by IntoUniversity noted that: • Bristol has 39 LSQAs (Lower Super Output Areas) in the most deprived 10% nationally. Of these, 14 are in the most deprived 3% and 4 in the most deprived 1%. • In the sub-domain of children and young people, 82 Bristol LSOAs fall within the most deprived 10% nationally in the domain of Education, Skills and Training deprivation. Of these, 17 LSOAs are in the most deprived 100 areas in England and Illminster Avenue West in Filwood is the most deprived LSOA in England. • Of England’s core cities, Bristol has the second lowest proportion of low income children progressing to higher education. • Black and minority ethnic pupils, those children with free school meal eligibility and pupils with English as an alternative language under-perform at all levels in Bristol. • In 2008, it was established that around 21,900 (27%) children live in poverty in Bristol. In Xxxxxxxx Xxxx, this rises to almost 60% - the bottom percentile of all wards nationally. Beyond the Bristol area, the University draws students primarily from the south of England, where average income levels are relatively high. A predominantly traditional subject portfolio also has some impact on attractiveness of programmes to widening participation students. These characteristics create some very specific challenges when it comes to diversifying our own undergraduate intake (as opposed to playing our part in raising student aspirations and widening participation in Higher Education more generally).
Assessment of access and retention record. 4.1 The University of Bristol is determined to invest additional fee income strategically in order to achieve maximum impact. We have taken an evidence-based approach, analysed current performance and prioritised interventions with a proven track record. As an institution with relatively low proportions of students from under-represented and disadvantaged groups we have focussed activity and investment on those areas in which we need to make progress against targets.
1 Where a year abroad is a fully integrated part of a programme of study, we wish to be able to charge the full fee of £9k per annum.
4.2 According to HESA performance indicators2, of the students aged under 21 who entered the University in 2012-13, 1.8 per cent withdrew from higher education without completing a programme, against a benchmark of 2.3 per cent. The same data source indicates a non- continuation rate of 10.5 per cent for mature students against a benchmark of 9 per cent. We recognise the need to improve rates for this group and outline planned activity in para 10.2.
4.3 Using the University’s own application and intake xxxxxxxx0 to analyse performance over the five year period from 2009-10 to 2014-15, the proportion of undergraduate applications from under-represented groups has increased in five categories: mature; disabled; local; NSEC groups 4-7; and Black and minority ethnic students). Applications from low participation neighbourhoods and the state sector have remained stable.
4.5 We are encouraged that following a period of decline from 2009-10, the 2014-15 data highlights an upward trend of applications from low performing school and college students. It should also be noted that in absolute numbers every category except mature students has seen an increase in applications. In many cases the 2014-15 figure is the highest for five years.
4.6 Whilst application rates are generally encouraging, we have had limited success in realising our ambitions to widen participation at the intake stage and we currently fall short of the majority of our HESA benchmarks.
4.7 In spite of limited progress against HESA benchmarks, the picture for many of the University’s own widening participation categories at the intake stage is more positive. Compared to the 2013 intake data, there has been a rise in all categories including a 1.8 per cent rise in intake from students attending low performing schools and colleges, a 0.4 per cent rise in local students and a 1.4 per cent rise in students f...
Assessment of access and retention record. The University of Suffolk has a high proportion of under-represented students. In 2017-18 the University plans to spend 25% of higher fee income on additional access and retention measures. This assessment is based on the following measures and indicators of students at the University of Suffolk: • 45.3% (14/15) of young full-time undergraduate entrants are from low socio-economic groups (NS-SEC classes 4, 5, 6, 7) (HESA data) (benchmark 42%) • 27% (14/15) of young full-time undergraduate entrants are from low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3 Quintile 1, students aged under 22 on entry) • 21.4% (14/15) of mature full-time undergraduate entrants have no previous HE and are from low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3 Q1) (benchmark 13%) • 27.3% as of March 2016 of the University’s students are part-time (2015-16 academic year) • 22% (14/15) of part-time young undergraduate entrants have no previous HE and are from low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3 Q1) (benchmark 17.6%) • 12.4% as of March 2016 (2015-16 academic year) of the University’s students come from ethnic minorities • 97.6% (14/15) of young full-time students come from state schools • In Suffolk the number of young people in Local Authority Care (LAC) progressing to university each year is consistently very low and there is considerable work to do in this area. At the University of Suffolk in 2014/15, 11 Care Leavers were studying at UCS. • Deprivation levels in much of Suffolk and Great Yarmouth remain high. 72 of Suffolk and Great Yarmouth’s Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) are ranked in the most deprived 20% of the country, and 37 LSOAs are ranked in the worst 10% of deprived areas in the country8 • A high number of students in Suffolk and Great Yarmouth in low participation groups are first generation HE students
Assessment of access and retention record. The University has a good record of achievement across a broad range of access indicators when compared to the national average and benchmarks. The University remains strong on its recruitment from state schools, low participation neighbourhoods, mature students, students in receipt of disabled students allowance and part time students. HESA Performance Indicators 2013/14
Assessment of access and retention record. In recent years King’s College London access agreements have established ambitious targets for the university and good progress has been made towards most milestones. In 2014-15 excellent progress was made towards our OFFA milestones with four out of six targets met or exceeded. We have comprehensively exceeded our target for students from NS-SEC classes 4, 5, 6 & 7 with the percentage climbing to 26.2% - over 4% above our 2016- 17 benchmark. We have also substantially increased our numbers of full-time first-degree entrants on HEFCE- funded programmes from state schools. The proportion has risen significantly from 72.4% to 74.9%. During this period we have also managed to exceed our 2016-17 benchmark for students from low-participation neighbourhoods. The proportion of students at King’s College London from Polar 1 and 2 neighbourhoods has grown from 3.7% to 5.2%, against a 4% target. Our flagship widening participation scheme K+ has a linked milestone. Excellent progress has been made on this front as we have already met our 2017 target, with 355 students enrolled at King’s College London in 2014-15. In 2014-15 the number of students from ethnic groups defined as non-white at King’s College London has increased to 41% but the target of 42.8% has not yet been met. Our performance in relation to retention has also improved increasing to 93.2% of students continuing into their second year of study. In order to build a more nuanced understanding of the socio-economic diversity of our applicant and undergraduate populations at King’s College London we have adopted the ACORN socio-geo-demographic profiling tool. This is particularly useful in an urban, London context as it is a more granular socio-geodemographic profiling tool with a ten household output area. Therefore, from 2016-17 onwards we have adopted an additional benchmark to monitor our performance in relation to the intake of ACORN groups 4 &5. In our most recent intake, 2014-15 18.5% of King’s College London’s student population were from ACORN 4 & 5 (8.7% Financially Stretched and 9.8% Urban Adversity). 25% are from Comfortable Communities (what one might term middle class) and 12.9% are from Rising Prosperity whilst 42.5% are Affluent Achievers. ACORN is now integrated into our OFFA benchmarks, widening participation selection processes and admissions systems.
Assessment of access and retention record. The assessment of the University’s expenditure on additional access and retention measures was based on the analysis of absolute and relative performance in key HESA widening participation performance indicators for undergraduate students and Training and Development Agency (TDA) performance profiles for groups currently under-represented in the teaching profession. The HESA benchmarks rather than comparisons with the overall sector average were used to compare our performance indicators with the sector average, because benchmarks take account of the University’s subject and entry qualification profile1. Performance indicators in access and retention for postgraduate ITT were compared with those of the TDA sector average. Assessment of expenditure on additional student success measures was based on an analysis of HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Survey (DLHE) data and TDA destination profiles.
Assessment of access and retention record. The University has a good record of achievement across a broad range of access indicators when compared to national averages and benchmarks. The University remains strong on its recruitment from state schools, low participation neighbourhoods, students in receipt of disabled students’ allowance, part time students and with a particular strength in its proportion of mature students. HESA Performance Indicators 2014/15 HESA PI TABLE Student Grouping UoH Benchmark Variance From Benchmark T1a Young FT First Degree Entrants From State Schools Or Colleges 94.1% 92.9% +1.2% T1a Young FT First Degree Entrants From Specified Socio-Economic Classes 33.2 36 -2.8% T1a Young FT First Degree Entrants From Low Participation Neighbourhoods 19.7 12.5 +7.2% T3b Non-continuation (Young FT First Degree Entrants From LPN) 9.4 8.6 -0.8% T5 Projected Outcome(full-time first degree entrants) 80.3 78.5 +1.8% The most recent HESA Performance Indicators show the University continuing to close the gap when compared to previous years; The participation indicator for ‘young full-time first degree entrants from state schools or colleges’ has increased from 92% in 2013/14 to 94.1% in 2014/15, and is now 1.2 percentage points above the benchmark. The participation indicator for ‘young full-time first degree entrants from specified socio- economic classes’ has decreased slightly from 34.2% in 2013/14 to 33.2% in 2014/15, and is
