institute for employment studies
Connor H, Burton R, Pearson R, Pollard E, Regan J
Universities UK, June 1999
sponsored by Universities UK
The expansion of higher education has increased choice and brought new student groups into higher education. At the same time, institutions are operating in a more competitive recruitment market. Universities and colleges now need to be clearer about the students they are trying to reach and how they market themselves, while students need to make well informed decisions if they are to maximise the value of their increasingly expensive higher education.
This report summarises the findings of a major national study into student choice of full-time higher education in the UK, in particular their choice of institution. The research was carried out by the independent Institute for Employment Studies (IES). The findings are based on responses from 20,000 applicants for full-time undergraduate courses in 1998; responses from 1,900 Year 11 (Y11) school students and their Scottish equivalents (S4); interviews with over 200 first year students; and reviews of relevant research literature and statistics.
Many students’ career plans, in particular decisions about further study, had been largely formulated by Y11/S4; ie long before they have to apply for higher education. The key influences on their plans included: expected attainment levels at GCSE/Scottish Standard grade, earlier school experiences, access to careers advice, and expectations from school and home.
Y11/S4 students expressed broadly positive views about higher education and its value, though there were concerns about the cost. Those most likely to participate in higher education were those with high exam expectations, Scottish students, those from higher social class groups and some ethnic minorities.
Gender was a significant factor: girls were more likely than boys to say they were considering higher education; were more likely to be planning to take vocational qualifications post-16; and were more likely to choose to study business studies or arts subjects in higher education. Differences were also found between white and ethnic minority students, and between Scottish and other UK students.
Both professional careers advisers and parents were influential in giving careers advice. However, those most definite about progressing to higher education were more likely to have been influenced by school subject teachers, while those who had already decided against or were undecided about higher education were more likely to have been influenced by school careers or guidance teachers and their parents.
While the overall demand for full-time undergraduate study is still dominated by young people, there has been growing demand from mature students (ie those aged over 21), those with vocational or access entry qualifications, those from lower social classes and income groups, and from ethnic minorities. These groups now represent an increasing share of many individual institutions’ intakes, and the majority at some.
Motivations towards higher education, and the different types of institutions and courses, varied between young and mature applicants, ethnic groups, the qualifications held, routes into higher education, social class, family income and family experience of higher education. Gender was most likely to affect subject choice.
The most used, and the most useful, information sources were the UCAS Handbook, prospectuses and visits/open days at universities and colleges. IT-based media, eg the internet and CD Roms, were used the least. ‘Advisers’, ranging from family and friends through to professional careers advisers, played an influential role in the choice process for many. By far the most helpful overall source of information (people or documents) was the university/college prospectus.
Fig. 1: Finding out about universities:
most helpful source of information or advice (per cent cases)
 |
| Note: only those sources mentioned by three per cent or more respondents are shown |
Source: IES Survey, 1998/1999
Mature applicants used a narrower range of sources and ‘advisers’ than younger ones (under 21 years); and they were much less likely to use guides or career fairs, but equally likely to have used the internet/websites. Young applicants were more likely to be influenced in their choices by informal advisers, such as family and friends, but mature applicants were more likely to have experienced visits from university representatives (eg to their colleges) and found them more useful than younger applicants.
The research and teaching quality assessment ratings and league tables were not widely used, but more so by higher ability and higher social class applicants. Prospectuses, while found to be very helpful, were often seen as promotional documents and many lacked the detail on courses to meet applicants’ needs. Experiences of visits to institutions varied considerably, not all were positive.
While they were not confused or overloaded by the large and growing volume of information available, many students found the choice process complex and difficult. They did not want more general information from institutions, rather better information that was more focused, and less one-sided, about specific courses, institutions and aspects of student life.
The priority was for the right subject of study. Quality, particularly in terms of teaching, and academic support and facilities, overall image and employment prospects for graduates were also important. Non-traditional applicants, particularly mature applicants and ethnic minorities, gave more emphasis to reputation and quality, location and nearness to ‘home’. By contrast, the more traditional applicants (ie the young, academically qualified) were more likely to seek a balance between academic quality and social life. Good employment prospects were important for most applicants, but especially for women, black and Asian applicants, Scottish applicants and those under 25. Figure 2 gives some examples to show how priorities differ between groups of applicants.
Fig. 2: Factors of importance for deciding where to apply
| ||||||||||||||||
Source: IES Survey, 1998/1999
Cost is a significant factor in the choice process, particularly for non-traditional student groups, encouraging many to study close to home and/or on a course where there are good employment prospects.
Most expected to have to work while they were students; their preference was to work during the vacation rather than in term time. Living at home was the least preferred option to meet the costs, especially among younger applicants. Lower income groups and older applicants were more likely to expect to work during term time. The majority would be considering taking a student loan.
Fig. 3: Options considered by applicants to help with their finances
 |
Source: IES Survey, 1998/1999
The majority estimated the costs of study to be in the range £2,000 to 5,000 (excluding fees). The upper end of this range is closest to informed estimates of the annual costs. Mature applicants estimated costs to be higher on average. Most were aware of the cost of fees but there was some evidence of confusion about the level of family income at which they had to be paid.
The choice process seemed to have been taken seriously by applicants, most having appeared to have made their choices in a sensible and logical way. There were few major areas of concern although there were criticisms about the quality and accuracy of information provided by some institutions and the lack of clarity on costs and financial arrangements. It was too early to assess what proportion may have had made ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ choices.
If potential students are to become ‘informed consumers’ and make the ‘best’ decisions for them, then a number of developments are needed, as shown below. Improvements, however, need to be shaped to recognise the diverse needs and circumstances of different groups of potential students and their advisers.
The Making the Right Choice study was undertaken by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) and sponsored by the CVCP (now Universities UK), the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and 15 universities and colleges. The study was also supported by a range of other bodies including the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals (COSHEP), the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC).
Copies of this Executive Summary (priced £1.50) can be obtained from Universities UK
(ISBN 1 84036 029 1)
Also available from Universities UK in the Making the Right Choice series:
Write to Universities UK Publications Department, Woburn House, 20 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HQ quoting the title(s) of the publication(s) and the delivery address. Please enclose a cheque for the relevant amount made payable to Universities UK. Please note: to keep costs down, Universities UK does not invoice customers for publications. Payment must be sent with the order.
Main report £7.50 (ISBN 1 84036 028 3)
Appendix 1 (Applicant’s survey) £5.00 (ISBN 1 84036 030 5)
Appendix 2 (Year 11/S4 survey) £5.00 (ISBN 1 84036 031 3)
Universities UK (formerly CVCP).
Universities UK consists of the executive heads of all UK universities. It exists to promote, encourage and develop the universities of the United Kingdom.
Woburn House, 20 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HQ
Tel +44 (0)171 419 4111
Fax +44 (0)171 388 8649
Email info@UniversitiesUK.ac.uk
Web www.UniversitiesUK.ac.uk
Making the Right Choice: How Students Choose Universities and Colleges, Connor H, Burton R, Pearson R, Pollard E, Regan J. Universities UK, 1999.
ISBN: 978-1-84036-029-5. £7.50
1999 © institute for employment studies
Source URL: http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/summary/summary.php?id=cvcpchoi&style=print
IES registered office: First Floor North, Sovereign House, Church Street, Brighton BN1 1UJ, UK
Registered in England no. 931547. IES is a charitable company limited by guarantee. Registered charity no. 258390
UK VAT registered, no. GB 449 5535 16
