Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
How do we group higher education
providers and students?
Marieke Guy and Simon Carpenter
R&I Away Day
21st January 2016
Grouping things…
• Typology – the study
of types
• Classification – the
action of classifying
something
• Clustering – gro...
Providers - the QAA
perspective
• Funding body (DEL, HEFCE, HEFCW, private, SFC)
• Type of funding (direct, indirect)
• Type (FEC, University/HEI, private...
The Institutional perspective
• Membership of body (Russell group, GuildHE, IUG,
University Alliance, 157Group, ACU, Million+,
Universitas21, Independen...
What’s the uniting feature of members?
Ancient University
Red brick or civic
Red brick chartered
Plate glass or 1960s
New university
Pre
1800s 1800 -
1900 1900 -...
• Carnegie classification
• Howells et al:
 Research led, third mission
 Local access
 Elite research
 London metropol...
The student perspective
• Campus type, size and setting (city, metropolitan,
surburban, small city, collegiate, campus)
• Location
• Student profi...
Do students all have the same approach to HEPs?
“…my gut instinct is that we don’t actually have enough
information about ...
Need a more comprehensive typology of students …
A start:
• Baby boomers (born between 1945 to 1960ish)
• Generation X (bo...
Thoughts so far :
• Stepping stone (to another college/HEP)
• Pure academic
• Exploratory (personal and career)
• Career a...
Clark and Trow (1966)
Involvement with ideas or involvement with institution
Four subcultures:
• Vocational
• Academics
• ...
Kuh, Hu and Vesper (2000)
• Disengaged
• Recreator
• Socializer
• Collegiate
• Scientist
• Individualist
• Artist
• Grind
...
So what is the relevance for R&I?
• Understanding the sector better
• Understanding our stakeholders better
• Going beyond metrics… (see the Metric Tide)
• ...
What next?
• More thinking!
• Comprehensive lit search
• Possible paper?
• Applying this to R&I work?
• More on alternativ...
“We have a genius for turning
difference into hierarchy”
David Eastwood, chair of the Russell Group
qaa.ac.uk
enquiries@qaa.ac.uk
+44 (0) 1452 557000
© The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2015
Registered char...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

How do we group higher education providers and students?

408 views

Published on

By Marieke Guy and Simon Carpenter - presented at QAA R&I away day, 21st January 2016

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

How do we group higher education providers and students?

  1. 1. How do we group higher education providers and students? Marieke Guy and Simon Carpenter R&I Away Day 21st January 2016
  2. 2. Grouping things… • Typology – the study of types • Classification – the action of classifying something • Clustering – grouping according to similarities
  3. 3. Providers - the QAA perspective
  4. 4. • Funding body (DEL, HEFCE, HEFCW, private, SFC) • Type of funding (direct, indirect) • Type (FEC, University/HEI, private) • Teir4, course designation, degree awarding powers, University title • Course levels • Subscriber or non subscriber • Review outcome, quality mark • Student numbers (FT, PT), student type (undergraduates, graduates, research), student domicile, campus locations • Legal issues
  5. 5. The Institutional perspective
  6. 6. • Membership of body (Russell group, GuildHE, IUG, University Alliance, 157Group, ACU, Million+, Universitas21, Independent Universities Group… ) • Regional and geographic groupings • Time of establishment/architecture • Research (REF) or teaching focused (TEF) • University, University College, University of London • Specialism (art, sport…), faith based • Distance learning • Size (large => 25,000 students, small =<15,000) • Global, industry links • Self declared excellence (technology)
  7. 7. What’s the uniting feature of members?
  8. 8. Ancient University Red brick or civic Red brick chartered Plate glass or 1960s New university Pre 1800s 1800 - 1900 1900 - 1963 1963 - 1992 Post 1992
  9. 9. • Carnegie classification • Howells et al:  Research led, third mission  Local access  Elite research  London metropolitan  High teaching growth  Research orientated, teaching growth • More??? Current research…
  10. 10. The student perspective
  11. 11. • Campus type, size and setting (city, metropolitan, surburban, small city, collegiate, campus) • Location • Student profile (social status, widening participation…) • Course offerings • League table rating • Satisfaction rating (NSS) • Entry standards (UCAS tariff) • Employability rating • Other metrics…
  12. 12. Do students all have the same approach to HEPs? “…my gut instinct is that we don’t actually have enough information about the students we are admitting.” (Louise Richardson Vice-Chancellor University of Oxford)
  13. 13. Need a more comprehensive typology of students … A start: • Baby boomers (born between 1945 to 1960ish) • Generation X (born between 1960s to the early 1980s) • Millennials/ Generation Y (born between 1980 and 2000) • Generation K or Z (born between 1995 and 2000ish)
  14. 14. Thoughts so far : • Stepping stone (to another college/HEP) • Pure academic • Exploratory (personal and career) • Career advancers • Looking for vocational qualifications • Skill upgrading • Need (have to do something) • Degree seeking (behaviours, not demographic)
  15. 15. Clark and Trow (1966) Involvement with ideas or involvement with institution Four subcultures: • Vocational • Academics • Collegiate • Nonconformist
  16. 16. Kuh, Hu and Vesper (2000) • Disengaged • Recreator • Socializer • Collegiate • Scientist • Individualist • Artist • Grind • Intellectuals • Conventionals
  17. 17. So what is the relevance for R&I?
  18. 18. • Understanding the sector better • Understanding our stakeholders better • Going beyond metrics… (see the Metric Tide) • Implications for TEF, reviewing etc. • Positioning on ideas related to the level playing field, one size fits all, risk-based review etc. • Myth busting • Supports the I in R&I!
  19. 19. What next? • More thinking! • Comprehensive lit search • Possible paper? • Applying this to R&I work? • More on alternative providers • Any other ideas?
  20. 20. “We have a genius for turning difference into hierarchy” David Eastwood, chair of the Russell Group
  21. 21. qaa.ac.uk enquiries@qaa.ac.uk +44 (0) 1452 557000 © The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2015 Registered charity numbers 1062746 and SC037786

×