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

2. THE RESEARCH DESIGN
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.

3. 2006 UCAS APPLICANTS: POPULATION AND RESPONSE AT WAVE ONE
SURVEY
RESPONDENTS
100,411 (82.4%)
accepted places in HE
21,461 (17.6%)
Not accepted
427,786
Invited to participate
in survey (84.5%)
122,872
responded
(24.1% of all
applicants
HE NON-
PARTICIPANTS
SHORT SURVEY
7,591
respondents
506,304 UCAS
applicants
NON
RESPONDENTS
223,198 (73%)
accepted places in HE
82,716 (27%)
not accepted
305,914
no response
(60.4%)
OTHER
APPLICANTS
64,000 (85.7%)
accepted places in HE
11,000 (14.3%)
not accepted
78,518 ‘late applicants’
or no supplied
not ed invitation
(15.5%)

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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. RESPONSE RATE ANALYSIS

8. 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.

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

10. 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

11. WHO GETS HE PLACES? - BY CONTEXT DURING APPLICATION

12. ETHNICITY BY SITUATION WHILE APPLYING FOR HE

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

15. DEGREE OF CLARITY ABOUT CAREER AMBITIONS, BY GENDER

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

17. CAREER PLANNING BY SUBJECT

18. All accepted applicants% Medicine & dentistry % Education %
Subjects allied to medicine %
Engineering & Tech. %
Business & Admin. %
Physical Science %
Language %
Historical & Philosophical Studies%
Per cent female 54 57 86 74 14 48 40 72 50
Per cent aged 25 or over 12 15 20 31 9 8 6
Per cent high soc-econ.[1] 30 11 21 22
Reasons for HE:
- normal thing… 35 44 27 39 36 42 47
- part of career plans 78 91 87 85 73 65 71
- to get good job 79 69 75 81 84 83 80
- to study subject 66
- friends doing it 13 18
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 = (NB overseas and non-standard qualifications zero-rated)
[3] On scale of 1-7 as in previous figures.

19. [3] On scale of 1-7 as in previous figures.
All accepted applicants%
Medicine & dentistry %
Education %
Subjects allied to medicine %
Engineering & Tech. %)
Business & Admin. %
Physical Sciences %
Languages %
Historical & Philosophical Studies%
Reasons for subject
- enjoy studying it 78 76 57 59 68 89 91 93
- get good grades 41 50 14 26 44 35 55 58 54
- to enter profession 90 80 77 48 30 32 23 16
- difficulty deciding 8 3 4 5 9 11 10
Excellent written communication* 20 27 15 19
Excellent numeracy skills* 17 36 34 18 7
Average UCAS tarriff[2]
5.5
7.5
4.5
4.6
5.4
4.8
6.8
6.7
Average career plan score[3]
2.8
1.3
1.5
1.6
2.5
2.9
3.4
3.6
3.9
* 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 = (NB overseas and non-standard qualifications zero-rated)
[3] On scale of 1-7 as in previous figures.

20. SUBJECT RATIOS - UK/EU/Overseas

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

23. ALL AND MAIN REASONS FOR APPLYING TO ENTER HE

24. REASONS FOR CHOICE OF HEI

25. ALL AND MAIN REASONS FOR CHOICE OF COURSE

27. INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO INFORM HE DECISION-MAKING

28. CHOOSING COURSES – EXPERIENCE OF INFORMATION SOURCES

29. HOW STUDENTS PROPOSED TO FUND THEIR STUDIES

30. RESPONDENTS’ EXPECTATIONS OF DEBT

31. DEBTS AND PAID WORK, BY DOMICILE

32. ATTITUDES OF RESPONDENTS TO KEY ISSUES

33. In the field NOW FUTURETRACK Wave 2:experience of 1st 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

34. 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?

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. For further information about
see OR
and follow the links to Futuretrack 2006
Methodological enquiries to the research team at