2. The NSS introduced in 2005, under Labour The Select Committee débacle The Mandelson – Willetts agreement, November 2009 Willetts views on information for candidates The Key Information Set (KIS), HEFCE and the Browne Review Information, transparency and quality But, are existing data sets (e.g. via Unistats) actually used by candidates?

3. Oakleigh Consulting and Staffordshire University; HEFCE response; now enshrined in the Browne Review recommendations A generic set of standard information for all programmes, and in a standard format Will be required of institutions (England only, but what about the devolved administrations?) Research only carried out on UK school leavers Possibly to be supplemented by KIS+ at institutional level (L/T strategy, WP strategy etc.) HEFCE consultation scheduled shortly (but may be overtaken by Browne Review deals)

4. Student satisfaction with: standard of teaching; course; support and guidance received; feedback on assessment; library facilities; IT facilities; Student Union Weekly contact time; % assessment by coursework % employed in professional or managerial job 1 year post-graduation; % in employment 1 year post-graduation; average salary 1 year post- graduation; professional body recognition Cost of halls of residence; maximum available bursary; max household income for bursary

5. Several of the satisfaction indicators derive from the NSS Although not at programme level So, how do GEES subjects do in the NSS?

6. Sector widePhysical geog/ Hum/SocGeol Env Science Geog Teaching 83 90 92 91 Assess/Fdbck 66 68 71 71 Acad. Supp. 75 81 81 82 Organ / Man. 73 83 88 81 Learning Res. 80 82 83 85 Personal Dev. 79 82 83 81 Overall 82 89 91 91

7. Sector widePhysical geog/ Hum/SocGeol Env Science Geog Teaching 83 90 92 91 Assess/Fdbck 66 68 71 71 Acad. Supp. 75 81 81 82 Organ / Man. 73 83 88 81 Learning Res. 80 82 83 85 Personal Dev. 79 82 83 81 Overall 82 89 91 91 Areas where we lead by less than 5% are shown in orange

8. Correlations with the overall score for departments: Phys Geog / ESHum/Soc Geog 1.Teach.0.73Teach.0.83 2.Ac Supp.0.68Ac Supp.0.72 3.Org/Man.0.62Org/Man.0.67 4.Pers. Dev.0.48Ass/Fdbck.0.66 5.Learn Res.0.39Pers. Dev.0.17 6.Ass/Fdbck.0.36Learn Res.0.15

9. Where institutions score in both Geography JACS codes, there is often little relationship visible: Hum / Soc Geog Phys Geog/ ES Overall satisfaction score Some correlations: Teaching+0.12 Academic support+0.21 Ass/fdbck+0.61Overall satisfaction+0.31

10. 1. Although we outperfom the sector in assessment and feedback, could we do better? 2. As disciplines that claim to develop transferable skills, are we satisfied with our personal development scores? 3. Scores for academic support go down into the 50s. How might we improve those? 4. Scores for teaching tend to be higher in HSG and in Geology than in PGES. Why is that?

11. The NSS is here to stay for the foreseeable future Its format is unlikely to change – comparability is a key issue It may be supplemented in various ways The PTES could well become compulsory for all institutions, and possibly also the PRES But these external surveys might not be an accurate picture of how the GEES community would like to present itself

12. Alongside KIS, institutions will have to provide other information (KIS plus). But institutions may also want to provide information in standard form for applicants other than 18 year old UK school leavers. (HEFCE debate is ongoing on this)

13. But should we ask all GEES departments to agree on further types of information they would wish to make available in standard form? Might this be a standard aspect of our brand as subjects? (Note the context of a withdrawal of government funding and the message that we are not priority subjects)

14. Are there further pieces of information that colleagues feel would be useful for potential students to receive about GEES subject areas? What might such pieces of information be? Could we get agreement – e.g. through the RGS of Heads of Department meetings – to introduce these as standard?