Applying for Higher Education Career Choices and Plans Putting Research Outcomes into Practice (PROP) Conference, Tuesday 12th June 2007 Professor Kate Purcell

Initial population census with targeted follow-up of under-represented groups. Reliance exclusively on web-based data collection. Contact with universities and colleges to maintain contact and ‘rebalancing’. Substantial resources devoted to: retention of sample members; co-ordination across HECSU wider research programme; dissemination of research findings. Longitudinal pilot survey, question testing, consultative approach to identification of priorities at each wave. THE RESEARCH DESIGN

2006 UCAS APPLICANTS: POPULATION AND RESPONSE AT WAVE ONE 506,304 UCAS applicants 78,518 ‘late applicants’ or no supplied not ed invitation (15.5%) 427,786 Invited to participate in survey (84.5%) 122,872 responded (24.1% of all applicants 305,914 no response (60.4%) SURVEY RESPONDENTS 100,411 (82.4%) accepted places in HE 21,461 (17.6%) Not accepted NON RESPONDENTS 223,198 (73%) accepted places in HE 82,716 (27%) not accepted OTHER APPLICANTS 64,000 (85.7%) accepted places in HE 11,000 (14.3%) not accepted HE NON- PARTICIPANTS SHORT SURVEY 7,591 respondents

FUTURETRACK Wave 1 TWO RELATED SURVEYS (..at least..) HE ENTRANTS NON-ENTRANTS Who accepted insurance place? Who turned down offered place and why? Who failed to obtain a place – and what did they do next? Who got first main scheme place? Who took a gap year and why? Who entered through Clearing? (and who changed course within first year?)

FUTURETRACK Wave 1 Full survey response of 121,427 Short questionnaire for non-accepted applicants: 7,591 responses Final response 129,118 Application data merged with survey responses Telephone follow-up interviews with targeted respondents

RESPONSE BIAS What bias did we expect? Gender (more women than men) Age (younger rather than mature) Ethnicity (lower proportion of Afro-Caribbean) Social background (fewer working class applicants) Entry qualifications (fewer applicants with low entry qualifications) Non-traditional degrees (fewer on Foundation degrees)

RESPONSE RATE ANALYSIS

THE KEY STRENGTHS OF THIS INVESTIGATION Large and comprehensive Longitudinal – from HE application to early career development Detailed data – university/college application data, educational history, socio-economic background and other attributes prior to survey responses and targeted follow-ups Opportunities for methodological development and testing Interdisciplinary research team using both quantitative and qualitative research methods Strong support from HE stakeholder community and collaboration to track students – with data-linking where feasible.

FUTURETRACK Wave 1 Some indicative findings (Weighted responses, HE participants only) NB: Not to be cited without permission of the research team

MAPPING DIVERSITY Different contexts and sources of information of HE applicants Different ‘HE Terrain’ (and VARIETY of HE Terrain) to which they have access STAGE 1: UNPACKING COMPLEXITY

WHO GETS HE PLACES? - BY CONTEXT DURING APPLICATION

ETHNICITY BY SITUATION WHILE APPLYING FOR HE

RESPONDENTS’ SELF-EVALUATION: KEY SKILLS PRIOR TO HE ENTRY

DEGREE OF CLARITY ABOUT CAREER AMBITIONS, BY GENDER

CLARITY OF IDEAS ABOUT CAREER PRIOR TO COURSE* BY AGE-GROUP

CAREER PLANNING BY SUBJECT

All accepted applicants % Medicine & dentistry % Education % Subjects allied to medicine % Engineering & Tech. % Business & Admin. % Physical Science % Language % Historical & Philosophi cal Studies% Per cent female Per cent aged 25 or over Per cent high soc- econ.[1][1] Reasons for HE: - normal thing… part of career plans to get good job to study subject friends doing it Self-evaluation on range of ‘Excellent’, ‘Very good’, ‘Good’ ‘Adequate’ or ‘Not very good’ [1] From higher managerial or professional household (SES1) [2] From categories 0- 11, where 0 = 0 and 11 = 540+ (NB overseas and non-standard qualifications zero-rated) [3] On scale of 1-7 as in previous figures.

All accepted applicants% Medicin e & dentistry % Educatio n % Subjects allied to medicin e % Enginee ring & Tech. %) Busines s & Admin. % Physical Science s % Languag es % Historica l & Philosop hical Studies % Reasons for subject - enjoy studying it get good grades to enter profession difficulty deciding Excellent written communication* Excellent numeracy skills* Average UCAS tarriff[2][2] Average career plan score[3][3] *Self-evaluation on range of ‘Excellent’, ‘Very good’, ‘Good’ ‘Adequate’ or ‘Not very good’ [1] From higher managerial or professional household (SES1) [2][2] From categories 0- 11, where 0 = 0 and 11 = 540+ (NB overseas and non-standard qualifications zero-rated) [3][3] On scale of 1-7 as in previous figures.

SUBJECT RATIOS - UK/EU/Overseas

SELECTED MAJOR SUBJECT GROUPS OF COURSES APPLIED FOR, COMPARING ASIAN, BLACK AND WHITE APPLICANTS

ALL AND MAIN REASONS FOR APPLYING TO ENTER HE

REASONS FOR CHOICE OF HEI

ALL AND MAIN REASONS FOR CHOICE OF COURSE

INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO INFORM HE DECISION-MAKING

CHOOSING COURSES – EXPERIENCE OF INFORMATION SOURCES

HOW STUDENTS PROPOSED TO FUND THEIR STUDIES

RESPONDENTS’ EXPECTATIONS OF DEBT

DEBTS AND PAID WORK, BY DOMICILE

ATTITUDES OF RESPONDENTS TO KEY ISSUES

In the field NOW FUTURETRACK Wave 2:experience of 1 st year Topics to be investigated include: current situation, evaluation of HE experience – study, paid and unpaid work, extra-curricular activities, HE context – region, type of university/college, travel, accommodation and other resources current career aspirations, use of careers service, finance and debt, obstacles encountered and access to opportunities

SUBSEQUENT WAVES OF THE SURVEY AT THE END OF FIRST DEGREE STUDY (2009): Educational outcomes, career planning and use of careers information and guidance services; The next stage –graduate study, entry to employment, experience of job-seeking, evaluation of fit between education and early outcomes, career plans and choices. TWO+ YEARS LATER (2011-2): Where are they now? Early career development, different career paths, impact of advice and guidance; value of higher educations experience and credentials, impact of access to information and Career planning and use of services; evaluation of fit between education and outcomes, longer-term career plans; continuing educational, training and career guidance needs; Integration into the graduate labour market – winners, losers, and what can we learn from their experience?

OBJECTIVES improve understanding of the career decision- making process; clarify the impact of obstacles and advantages in determining opportunities; provide both an overview of the student population and insight into particular categories of students; reveal where, when, what and for whom careers information and guidance are most effective – and most required; provide unprecedented evidence about the relationship between higher education and early career development to inform practice, policy and debates about ‘the knowledge society’, etc.

KEY ISSUES Publicity and collaboration with other Stakeholders – particularly HEIs and Careers Services – will be essential to ensure high retention rate; Targeting of under-represented groups required; incentives and role of website important – sponsorship, opportunities, etc; development of panel element, to facilitate the addition of those who failed to participate first time round.

For further information about see ORwww.hecsu.ac.uk and follow the links to Futuretrack 2006 Methodological enquiries to the research team at