The Data Issue
The Trouble With Data
Following various press headlines regarding Vice Chancellors' pay in the UK and Australia, the university response generally comes down to the fact that university leaders oversee multi-million dollar organisations, employing in the UK over half a million staff members and educating 2.8million students, and in the case of Australia, employing around 130,000 staff and educating 1.5million students. With such revenues and numbers at stake commercial organisations of a similar size would “live, breathe and die” by access to data. Revenue and costs, segmented by product, market, cost of sales etc. Why is this not the case when it comes to higher education?
This is most apparent in the UK with HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency data on student numbers (literally a headcount of students), over two years out of date and published six months late, with significant inconsistencies from the previous year. How on earth is any multi-million dollar organisation meant to forecast future revenues and ensure their financial survival, with such outdated and inconsistent data?
Such poor data lead to the “Office for Students’ (OfS) optimistic projection that tuition fees from non-EU overseas students would constitute 24% of total income by 2025-26, a leap from the current 19%.” In hindsight this was “wildly optimistic” and is part of the reason now over 70 UK higher education institutions have announced significant restructuring and staff redundancies.
It does not get much better when it comes to graduate outcomes data! Despite requests from the OfS, UKCISA and Universities UK, since 2019 HESA no longer actively collects Non-EU Graduate Outcomes data, and data for UK and EU students has seen response rates drop to 20% from over 40% previously; this data has also been inconsistent from year to year!
When Gavin Williamson the then Conservative Education Minister, wrote to OfS in September 2019 he included a sting in the tail for the sector, that was still busy celebrating the news of the reintroduction of post-study work visas. “It is critical that international students receive a world-class experience.” His direction to OfS was that he would like it to consider steps to ensure that international students "receive the employability skills they need and are supported into employment, in their home country or the UK.”
The response from the OfS and sector was not only disappointing, but we would go as far as to say was discriminatory against the thousands of Non-EU students that choose to study in the UK, giving them less access to employability support than their UK and EU peers, for which the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), JISC, actively collect Graduate Outcomes data. In 2019 the decision was taken by HESA to cease providing the same services for Non-EU students.
The OfS response to Minister Williamson was as follows, “International Employment outcomes are fiendishly hard to measure, let alone benchmark and TNE will have problems."
Contrary to this opinion and that the sector should “make do” with a barely over 20% Graduate Outcomes response rate and woefully low Chinese sample. With a more innovative, technology enabled data collection methodology, Asia Careers Group SDN BHD has been measuring & benchmarking International Employment outcomes since 2016, for over 100,000 individuals in African and Asian markets, in proportions that mirror Australian and UK, international student populations.
Asia Careers Group SDN BHD tracks the time it takes for international graduates to secure employment, top employers by country, international graduate career progression over time and average incomes. This data and insight has been used by forward-looking UK higher education institutions to improve and enhance their international student outcomes including: ARU; Aston; Bangor; Coventry; Dundee; Durham; Exeter; Greenwich; King’s; Loughborough; NTU; Sheffield, UEA and York. These institutions should be commended for “investing in international futures,” in advance of the rest of the sector.
When it comes to Australia, data on both student numbers and graduate outcomes is timelier, although far from real time! Plus, one could argue that it is more accessible and user friendly, with fewer inconsistencies compared to the UK. This allows the sector in Australia to make more accurate forecasts and inform strategy with better data. We feel that better data has, in the main, led to improved decision-making and innovation "down under".
That said there is still little if any international graduate outcomes data pertaining to the majority of international graduates returning home to embark on their early careers, with QILT focused exclusively on employment in Australia and not further afield. Such data could have proved invaluable when lobbying the present Labour government against the implementation of international student caps, with evidence that most international students return to their home countries and into successful careers, to counter the anti-immigration narrative that international students are “taking Australian jobs”, prior to the Australian election.
Until universities align their institutional strategies more closely to the employment outcomes of their students, and provide key stakeholders and their funders: government; leadership; prospective students and tax payer/society at large, evidence that their degree programmes, lead directly to gainful employment of their graduates and contribute to economic prosperity and productivity, their social license will be increasingly questioned.
If universities are to weather the impending storm of student caps, anti-immigration legislation and upcoming elections, in order to remain financially solvent, they must as a collective improve the quality of data across all aspects of their operations. Transparency is the perfect antidote to increased regulation, however compelling transparency requires a collective will to do so and some investment in, among other areas, international graduate outcomes. That said, considering the sectors' financial well-being to a certain extent is dependent on international student tuition fees, one would think it is a price worth paying.
--
The Data Issue
Having looked closely at government mandated graduate outcomes data from both Australia and the UK, we have put together a commentary on data consistency, quality and ease of use. We hope you find this useful in your own data analysis and this commentary can be utilised by colleagues working in higher education to improve and enhance data provision now and in the future.
HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency data.
1. Issues with consistency where the source data differs from year to year
Example Table 1
 |
 |
( Link to Figure 15 and Figure 3 )
Example Table 2
[ 2023 Data ]
Variations in data raise concerns about consistency. While some fluctuation is expected, it's important for data to be consistent to ensure accuracy and reliability in analysis and reporting.
In terms of usability, UK HESA’s data is scattered across multiple links, unlike Australian QILT’s data which is organized as a series of PDFs making it much more user friendly, plus providing institutions summaries for ease of analysis. While yearly data is valuable for time-based analysis, data has to be downloaded year on year, and cannot be collated for more efficient analysis.
Currently, the raw data format differs from the table format, and the process of downloading each set, especially with various filter combinations, is cumbersome. Aligning the formats would greatly improve usability.
Example Table 3
( Link to Table 6 )
Additionally, discrepancies in the sum of values, raises concerns about accuracy.
Analysis of Australian QILT Data
- There is ambiguity regarding the time period – does the data refer to a single year 2023 or does it include data up to 2023? HESA’s data works on an annual cycle and is reported annually all be it often later than scheduled. Year-on-year reporting of data allows for time series comparisons.
- Unlike HESA, QILT data is consistent and is presented as percentage figures instead of raw data, which preferable from an analyst's point of view for quick analysis and comparisons.
|
Summary: HESA Data Advantages:
Disadvantages:
QILT Data Advantages:
Disadvantages:
|
Comparisons of government mandated domestic graduate outcomes data for both Australia and the UK with Asia Careers Group SDN BHD's International Graduate Outcomes data, focused on international graduates returning to their home countries post-graduation.
Overall Employability of UK Domestic & International Graduates
When comparing our international graduate data with HESA’s domestic graduate data, the overall employability of international graduates shows a slight decline relative to domestic graduates, with the international average being lower across all UK institutions.
Undergraduate Employability of UK Domestic & International Graduates
For undergraduates, our data reveals a slightly lower average employability rate of 74.78% compared to the overall average of 75.76%. This suggests that international undergraduates face some challenges in securing employment compared to the broader graduate group.
The variance among Non-Russell Group (Non-RG) universities (30.97% to 3.36%) and Russell Group (RG) universities (31.66% to 10.50%) is significant, highlighting disparities in employability outcomes based on the institution. This suggests that while some universities effectively supports international undergraduates in securing employment, others may be falling behind, resulting in a more inconsistent employability landscape for this group.
Postgraduate Employability of UK Domestic & International Graduates
Postgraduates have a higher average employability rate of 77.02%, which is 2.24% greater than that of undergraduates. However, there is significant variance, particularly within Russell Group universities, where employability rates range from 37.74% to 10.21%. This variation suggests that, while postgraduates generally fare better, outcomes can differ markedly based on the institution attended.
Comparing these variances to the domestic data from HESA, where employability is reported to have increased from 67% in 2017 to 72% in 2021, it’s clear that while international graduates (especially postgraduates) generally achieve high employability, their outcomes are less consistent than those of domestic graduates. This inconsistency could be attributed to varying levels of support, industry connections, and resources available to international students at different institutions.
Wider variances in our international data compared to the more stable figures reported by HESA for domestic graduates suggest that while international students can achieve high employability, their success is more heavily influenced by the specific university they attend. This underscores the need to improve support structures and employability initiatives for international students, particularly at institutions with lower employability outcomes.
Undergraduate Employability of Australian Domestic & International Graduates
In Australia, the data reveals a somewhat different picture. For international undergraduates, our figures indicate employability rates that surpass those reported by QILT, with approximately 50% of institutions showing better outcomes. Additionally, the variances in employability rates between our ACG Australian data and QILT are generally smaller than those between our ACG UK data and HESA.
Postgraduate Employability of Australian Domestic & International Graduates
Regarding postgraduate employability, the trend mirrors that of the UK, where postgraduates generally achieve better outcomes compared to undergraduates. In Australia, postgraduate employability exceeds that of undergraduates by 1.76%, reinforcing the positive trend observed in both countries.
Our data shows that international postgraduates generally have slightly lower employability rates compared to domestic QILT's figures, though the differences are not significant overall.
Overall comparison - Table
Comments
- In Australia, our overall employment rate was similar to QILT's in 2016 and 2017 but has gradually declined in subsequent years. Meanwhile, QILT’s overall employability rate has remained relatively constant, ranging from 92% to 94%. In contrast, our data shows a significant disparity, with employability dropping from a high of 87% in 2016 to a low of 65% in 2023.
- In the UK, our overall employment rate was stronger than HESA's before 2020 but worsened in 2020 and 2021. HESA reports that the employability of domestic graduates increased from 67% in 2017 to 72% in 2021. However, our data indicates a sharp decline in the employability of international graduates, falling from 85% to 59% during the same period.
Overall comparison - Graph
For 2023, we predict the employability of domestic graduates, based on HESA data, to be around 86% to 88%. In contrast, the employability of international graduates (specifically HESA Non-European Union data) is expected to be lower, at approximately 75% to 76%.
Before 2018, UK international graduates had better outcomes than their Australian peers, but post-2018, employability declined, with the pandemic impacting UK graduates more significantly than those in Australia.
|
Disclaimer on Average Employability Rates It’s important to clarify how the employability averages presented in this report have been calculated, as the method used can influence the results. For instance, the average employability rate of Australian international graduates based on ACG’s, calculated at approximately 79% across various years, differs from the national average employability rate of undergraduates in Australia, which is around 82%. This distinction highlights a key point: averaging across universities and averaging by year can produce different values. The way data is aggregated and the specific datasets used can impact the overall picture of employability that is presented. We encourage readers to consider these nuances when interpreting the figures and comparing the various averages in this report. |
--
Higher Education in the Age of Social Media
For those of us that attended universities in the 1980s and 1990s, the higher education experience has changed significantly since we were there! It is now our children that are deciding whether or not to embark on tertiary education and the world is a very different place. So much of their lives are lived through social media and technology, is the traditional campus model of higher education still relevant and/or desirable?
Before the turn of the century, the decision to attend university was generally seen as a 'rite of passage' for the upper and middle classes. Some might say that universities served a valuable 'public service' by saving employers the effort and pain of hiring significant numbers of 18-year-olds directly from school.
On a more serious note, universities provide a relatively enriching and safe environment for young adults to develop their interpersonal and intellectual skills, surrounded by peers while expanding their social circle and broadening their horizons. In truth when I was in university it was more about the socialising than it was about the studies. Whilst I managed to secure a good degree, what I remember and has left a lasting impression is how much I developed as an individual and the people I met, and life experiences I enjoyed as a student.
The pandemic changed everything, with teenagers and young adults confined to their bedrooms for up to three years, learning from home and unable to socialise with their friends. Universities to their credit responded reasonably well, transferring learning online, and providing support to students stuck on campus. But this prolonged period of isolation has left its mark on young adults today.
Often far more comfortable living their lives through social media and virtual worlds like Roblox, Instagram and TikTok, success is defined through online likes, comments, connections and followers, not in-person conversations and networks. Young people can now have thousands of followers online, compared to a few close friends and a few more acquaintances.
So how will these changes challenge the traditional model of higher education?
Increasingly while tutorials may be on campus once or twice a week, lectures at university are “optional” with the majority of students choosing an extra few hours in bed or in part time work to pay the bills and logging on after the live event. More students are living at home, often a significant distance from campus – so called “commuter student” populations are increasing. In some Australian universities the on-campus experience is becoming the exception not the rule.
Socialising, in student venues is becoming less common and fortunately the university experience is becoming a lot less focused on alcohol consumption, as the student body becomes more diverse with different cultural and religious beliefs. Good news for students’ health and long term wellbeing but bad news for the publicans and bar owners in many university cities.
The definition of a typical day at university used to be attending a lecture in the morning, a pint in the pub at lunch time, a lecture or two in the afternoon and going to the student’s union in the evening with a large group of friends.
Now it is more likely to be spent at home reviewing course content online, with a trip to a local coffee shop with instagramable cakes, shared with hundreds of followers online, laptop in hand to finish that essay, followed by part time work in the evening to earn some cash to cover commuting expenses to university and to keep one’s head above water as the cost-of-living crisis bites.
In some ways the university experience has become far more solitary. While students are more visible online through social networks, we fear this may contribute to deteriorating mental health among students as many report feeling lonely, despite studying among a student population of thousands, with whom they no longer have a sense of belonging.
For international students it can be especially lonely, far from home and their families and friends, with additional financial pressures due to study loans and premium international student tuition fees. Many international students are compelled to work to afford their rent and living expenses, whilst studying full-time. One can understand that they will question the return on investment in their education before taking the plunge.
Increasingly both domestic and international students go into higher education with an end game in mind, they want to study a particular subject to get a specific job in an organisation which resonates with them. It’s all about employability! A university education is a means to an end, no longer the end in itself.
So how should universities respond?
The first thing to consider is how does your campus and facilities come over on a selfie, when shared with thousands of your students’ followers. So much for Gen Z communication is visual and comes from “sharing” with friends via social media. Whilst capital expenditure may be difficult at the present time due to financial constraints, how your campus presents itself to prospective students on social networks is important. To give an example, my thirteen-year-old daughter was comparing US college dorms and UK university halls the other day on TikTok.
Cosmetic changes are all well and good, but considering today's youth are so future and career focused, higher education institutions need to integrate the world of work with university life, inviting alumni and employers to campus, for instagramable moments with existing and prospective students.
Bringing leading brands on campus that resonate with Gen Z – Apple, ByteDance, Google, Nike, Roblox, Sephora, Spotify, Starbucks, Uniqlo, either in a commercial context or with a view to careers. While a student may not come to campus to attend a lecture, they may be tempted to speak to an employer from one of their favourite brands, or to an alumni that is an influencer or a Top Voice and/or to secure their dream job.
Ensuring faculties have industrial linkages in areas students care about and would like to work within, be it AI, the creative arts, environmental stewardship, fintech, genetic engineering, human rights etc. - is essential. Plus, incubating start-ups on campus, providing seed funding and support can enhance these connections.
In truth, the so-called “the golden age of universities” may well be over, but universities can reinvent themselves for the coming generations, but only if the will is there to change and align what they offer with the concerns of prospective students about their future job market opportunities and career advancement.
