Part-time Foundation degree students: Two years after graduation · 2019. 12. 11. · Part-time...

1

Part-time Foundation degree students: Two years

after graduation

A Report to fdf

Claire CallenderDavid Wilkinson

Part-time Foundation degree students: Two years after graduation

2

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to a range of people and organisations who have helped with this study. First, to Derek Longhurst from fdf who have been supportive throughout the duration of the study. Next, we would like to thank the IFF, and in particular Jan Shury who conducted the survey of students on our behalf. Finally, we thank the students who participated in the study – without their help this study could not have happened.

All the views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors.

Professor Claire CallenderBirkbeck and Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonJuly 2011

Claire Callender Birkbeck and Institute of Education, University of London

David WilkinsonNational Institute of Economic and Social Research

3

Contents

Executive summary 6

1. Introduction 1.1 Policy context 10 1.2 Research context 11 1.3 Aims and objectives of the research 12 1.4 Methodology 13 1.5 Outline of the report 13 1.6 The characteristics of the students surveyed 14 1.7 About their Foundation degree course 16

2. Qualifications received 2.1 The qualification achieved 18 2.2 Progression to an honours degree programme 19 2.3 Subsequent qualifications 21

3. Career plans, satisfaction and information, advice and guidance 3.1 Career plans 24 3.2 Career satisfaction 25 3.3 Careers information, advice and guidance 26

4. Economic activity in the 2010 survey 4.1 Employment status 29 4.2 Characteristics of job held at 2010 interview 30 4.3 Whether current job related to long-term 32

career plans 4.4 Relationship between qualification and job 33 4.5 Job conditions, including pay 34

5. The impact of completing a qualification 5.1 Attitudes to study 38 5.2 Impact on skill development and use of 40

these skills 5.3 Impact on personal development 42 5.4 Impact on work 43 5.5 Plans and expectations for the future 44


4

Figures index

Figures

Figure 2.1 Why wanted to progress to a Bachelor’s degree 19

Figure 2.2 Why did not want to progress to a Bachelor’s degree 20

Figure 2.3 How likely respondents would have been to undertake subsequent course if had not taken original Foundation degree 22

Figure 2.4 Why took the course 23

Figure 2.5 Who pays fees for this course 23

Figure 3.1 How ideas about career plans had changed since starting their course 24

Figure 3.2 How graduates rated the clarity of their long-term career planning 25

Figure 3.3 Career satisfaction by graduate characteristics: Percentage very or fairly satisfied 26

Figure 3.4 Sources of careers information, advice and guidance: percentage used 26

Figure 3.5 Percentage of graduates who rated source most helpful given they used the source of careers information, advice and guidance 27

Figure 3.6 Whether graduates sought careers information, advice and guidance before completing their study, after completing their study or both 27

Figure 4.1 Gender mix of employment situation 31

Figure 4.2 Whether current job is related to long term career plans: percentage of respondents 33

Figure 4.3 Relevance of qualification to job 34

Figure 4.4 How appropriate is respondents’ job for someone with their level of qualification 34

Figure 4.5 Further job characteristics 35

Figure 4.6 Job satisfaction by respondent characteristics 36

Figure 4.7 Average pay by respondent characteristics 37

Figure 5.1 Likelihood of doing the course now 38

Figure 5.2 Assessment of the value of the course 39

Figure 5.3 What graduates valued the most about their course 40

Figure 5.4 Use of skills 41

Figure 5.5 Development of skills 41

Figure 5.6 Impact of course on measures of personal development 43

Figure 5.7 Work changes as a result of the course 44

Figure 5.8 Changes hoped for in next three to five years for employed respondents 45

Figure 5.9 Why employees want to change job and employer 45

Figure 5.10 Percentage of respondents expecting income to increase in the next three years 46

5

Tables index

Tables

Table 1.1 Student characteristics 15

Table 1.2 Foundation degree course and institution characteristics 17

Table 2.1 The qualification achieved 18

Table 2.2 Final mark for Foundation degree graduates 18

Table 2.3 Year qualification completed 20

Table 2.4 Course duration by qualification achieved 21

Table 2.5 Further education and training 21

Table 2.6 Most subsequent qualification taken by those who had achieved a Foundation degree 21

Table 2.7 How long will it/did it take to complete this course or qualification 22

Table 3.1 Career satisfaction 25

Table 4.1 Employment status before, during and after the course 29

Table 4.2 Stability of employment patterns 29

Table 4.3 Stability of employment status 30

Table 4.4 Job characteristics in 2010 30

Table 4.5 Individual occupation in 2010 and occupation of highest household earner in 2008 31

Table 4.6 Industry of employment in 2010 31

6

Executive summary

This report is based on the findings of a survey conducted in 2010 of 296 UK domiciled part-time Foundation degree graduates who were originally surveyed in 2008 when they were in their final year of study. Thus, the report gives an indication of how these individuals have progressed two years after they were first interviewed and what impact their course had on their career development. The study was conducted for the Higher Education Careers Service Unit (HECSU), fdf and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and undertaken by Prof Claire Callender, Birkbeck and the Institute of Education, University of London and David Wilkinson of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

Key messagesThis is one of the few longitudinal studies that has examined how a cross-section of just under 300 students taking Foundation

degrees at a range of higher education institutions (HEIs) and in a variety of subjects, have fared after completing their

Foundation degree qualification. These students were first interviewed in 2008 when most were in their final year of study,

and again in 2010 once they had completed their qualification.

Overall, the findings of this small scale study are very positive in terms of the outcomes both for the graduates of Foundation

degrees, on a personal and professional level, and for their employers. The experience of studying for this particular

qualification increased their human and cultural capital. This was the case despite the employment uncertainties of the

time arising from the economic recession which might have undermined the benefits accruing from gaining a Foundation

degree. The findings confirm that Foundation degrees have been successful in increasing the number of people with

intermediate higher technical and associate professional level skills which meet the needs of employers.

Taking a Foundation degreeAll of the respondents had successfully gained a higher education qualification as a result of taking their Foundation degree

course, except for seven percent who gained some other form of qualification. Most were happy with their choices about

their course, institution, qualification, the decision to enter higher education and to study part-time. The majority were very

likely (63%) or likely (21%) to do the same course again at the same place while one in five would do the same course but

at different place.


7

Their overall evaluation of their course was positive too. The majority agreed strongly that the time they had spent in higher education was a good investment (72%) and that their course was good value for money (60%) with only 7% taking a negative position in response to this issue.

Enhancing qualifications and skillsThe outcomes of having taken a Foundation degree were very positive in terms of encouraging further study and skills enhancement. The majority of Foundation degree graduates took further qualifications or courses after completing their Foundation degree. Over a half of all Foundation degree graduates progressed on to a Bachelor’s degree – well above the national average - despite the fact that only a minority (33%) had intended to do so when starting their Foundation degree. They had taken this additional qualification primarily to improve their career prospects (51%) or to pursue a professional registration or qualification (33%). Those who decided not to take a ‘top-up’ degree course decided against it primarily for personal reasons (47%) although minorities did not progress to a Bachelor’s degree because they could not afford to, or because there were no suitable top-up courses available (13%) suggesting some supply problems with ‘top-up’ Bachelor degree courses .

Of those who had taken a further qualification or course after completing their Foundation degree, the vast majority were studying part-time (92%) and were still studying at the time of the interview (71%). Three-quarters of them acknowledged that it was unlikely they would have undertaken these courses had it not been for their Foundation degree. So taking the Foundation degree was a springboard to further study.

For the majority of Foundation degree graduates, not just those taking a further qualification, the experience of studying for a Foundation degree had changed their attitude to study. As a result of their Foundation degree course, most (87%) enjoyed learning more and were more aware of its benefits. Those taking a subsequent qualification or course also were more likely to be motivated by the intrinsic rewards of studying, because they were interested in the subject, rather than by its extrinsic rewards in terms of job opportunities and career development. So a larger proportion of Foundation degree graduates in 2010 said ‘interest in the subject’ was a very important reason for taking another course than gave this reason for taking their original Foundation degree course when interviewed in 2008 (74% in 2010 compared with 69% in 2008). And it is perhaps for these reasons they also were more willing to fund their subsequent courses themselves, in the absence of employer support. In 2010, 36% of students paid the tuition fees of their subsequent courses themselves, and 36% received help from their employer. In contrast, in 2008 only 30% had paid for their Foundation degree themselves and 41% of their employers contributed to these costs. This reflects the Conservative and Liberal coalition government’s desire, outlined in Skills for Sustainable Growth, that

The cost of paying for training should ultimately be shared between employers, individuals and the state to reflect the benefit each receives. As well as being a better way of allocating scarce resource, it means that individuals and business are motivated to ensure that what is provided meets their needs.1

However, in 2010 tuition fees were still relatively low and thus potentially affordable. Moreover, without the financial help to take their initial qualification and reaping the benefits of that qualification, the respondents may have not been so willing to fund further study.

It is quite clear that Foundation degrees are meeting the governments’ skills agenda and have met one of the key objectives of Foundation degrees in particular – to increase the numbers of people with intermediate higher technical and associate professional level skills.

1 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010) Skills for Sustainable Growth. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, para 28, p. 10


8

Careers and Employment90% of respondents were employed before, during and after their course and 71% of these were always employed full-time

and 10% were always employed part-time. Around 20% switched between full-time and part-time employment, with the

most common employment pattern being in part-time employment before and during study and full-time employment

after study.

Consequently, by 2010 nearly all of the respondents (95%), after completing their Foundation degree, were employed

mostly in the public sector and in permanent full-time posts with average salaries of £24,000 per annum. However, there

were considerable gender differences in average pay with male respondents earning considerably more than female

respondents (£34,000 compared to £20,000). These differences arose from both horizontal and vertical occupational

segregation whereby women were concentrated in low-paying occupations and were less likely than men to be in more

senior, higher paid jobs, and from the fact that women were far more likely than men to work part-time.

For the vast majority, their Foundation degree qualification was related to their job and so most believed that their job

was appropriate for someone with their level of qualification. For most their job offered to a great extent interesting and

challenging work (72%) and for a sizable minority, opportunities for skills development (47%) and long-term security (37%).

Overall, the vast majority of Foundation degree graduates were satisfied with their careers (93%) and with their jobs (89%)

which were related to their long term career (85%). A half agreed that their course had led to the career changes they had

hoped for while a third disagreed.

About half had sought careers information, advice or guidance since they were last interviewed in 2008. Of those who had,

they most frequently called on their employer or someone at work (61%) which also was the most helpful source, followed

by their family and friends (45%). Only a quarter used the career service at their university or college although 39% of

respondents had talked to a lecturer or someone else at their university/college about their careers. Overall, these findings

echo those of the first survey. In 2008, students in their first year of study before starting their course also were most likely

to rely on their employer or someone at work (33%). It is an empirical question which source of careers information, advice

and guidance is most likely to be impartial or broadly informed. Clearly, there is an appetite for such help and support, and

university career services may not be meeting that demand.

Meeting the needs of employersThe employment outcomes from having taken a Foundation degree were also very positive. Most respondents reported that

their qualification was related to their job a great deal (67%). A slightly smaller proportion (60%) said that they used the skills

learned on their course a great deal in their present job. Indeed, the knowledge and skills acquired through their studies was

what respondents valued most about their course (58%), followed by the skills acquired that they had subsequently used in

their work (31%), and personal development (31%).

Most of the skills respondents used a lot in their jobs also were developed a lot on their course, especially: subject knowledge

(88%); the ability to apply knowledge (78%); ability to analyse material and situation critically (74%); written communication

(57%); and self-discipline (52%). However, other skills were developed less successfully by their course especially computer

literacy and numeracy skills. It is in these skills areas where Foundation degrees may not be meeting the needs of employers.

It was clear, however, that respondents’ ability to undertake their work and their productivity increased as a result of having

taken their Foundation degree. Roughly 90% of workers felt better qualified to do their job, had a deeper understanding of

their work, and were more confident about their work either as a direct result of their course or with the help of their course.

Roughly two-thirds of workers had taken on more responsibilities at work, were taken more seriously at work, were more

enthusiastic about their work, and found their work more satisfying because of their course.

9

There were other tangible benefits to having taken a qualification with a substantial proportion of respondents having risen up the occupational ladder. At the time of the respondents’ 2008 interview, a third were in managerial or professional occupations, just over half (56%) were in intermediate occupations, and 6% were in routine manual jobs. By 2010, over half (53%) were in managerial and professional, 45% in intermediate occupations while a handful were in routine manual jobs (2%). So upon completing their qualifications employed graduates had moved into higher occupation jobs.

Overall, there was a high level of employment continuity for part-time Foundation degree students with only a few respondents changing employers following their Foundation degree. For those who were employees both during and after study, 83% were working for the same employer, and just under two-thirds had been in their current job for over 5 years. Indeed, as a result of gaining a Foundation degree around a half of respondents thought they were more likely to stay with their employer. However, staying with their current employer was not necessarily part of respondents’ long-term career plans. A third of respondents hoped to change jobs and employer in the next 3-5 years, primarily to improve their long-term career prospects. A further third wanted to change jobs but stay with their employer in the next 3-5 years; one in five intended to stay in their current job while one in ten envisaged no change. However, the majority (59%), irrespective of their career plans expected their income to increase in the next three years, especially those aged under 25.

The wider benefits of learningThe graduates of Foundation degree courses had improved their qualifications and skills. They reaped the benefits of this and so did their employers. In addition to these economic and labour market advantages of up-skilling and re-skilling, Foundation degree graduates benefited in other ways from their studies. As already noted, as a result of their course Foundation degree graduates enjoyed learning more and were more aware of the benefits of learning. Furthermore, nearly all of them had developed personally while four in ten were more self-confident and over half were happier. And for a third their course had led to their children and family being more interested in learning. All these benefits are important and remind us of the intrinsic rewards of learning and transformational nature of lifelong learning rather than concentrating purely on its instrumental value which is the focus of the current government’s skills agenda.

10

1

Introduction

1.1 Policy contextFoundation degrees were launched in 2000 by David Blunkett, then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, although their origins lie in proposals for the enhancement of intermediate qualifications set out in the Dearing Report of 1997.2 The first Foundation degree programmes were launched in 2001-02 with an initial intake of just over 4000 students. Foundation degree enrolments have grown steadily since then, and by 2010-11, had increased to over 100,000.

Foundation degrees are higher education qualifications typically lasting two years when studied full- time and an average of three years part-time. However, an increasing number of Foundation degrees are not predicated upon the structure of the academic calendar and offer greater flexibility, especially when undertaken in the workplace. Indeed, Foundation degrees were designed specifically to offer flexible and accessible ways of studying for degree-level skills. They have employability objectives that require the sustained involvement of employers, and include work-based learning.

Foundation degrees aimed:

• to increase a shortfall in the numbers of people with intermediate higher technical and associate professional level skills• to better align the content and organisation of programmes with what employers required; and• to increase and widen participation by providing a new, more accessible route into higher education.3

Foundation degrees integrate academic and work-based learning through close collaboration between employers and programme providers. They are vocationally focused and aim to equip learners with the skills and knowledge relevant to their employment and the needs of employers. They also provide the opportunity to progress to other qualifications, including articulation arrangements for progression to Honours degree study or to professional qualifications.

According to the QAA ‘The distinctiveness of the Foundation degree can be found in the integration of the following characteristics: accessibility; articulation and progression; employer involvement; flexibility; and partnership. While none of these attributes are unique to Foundation degrees, their clear and planned integration within a single award underpinned by work-based learning makes the award highly distinctive.’4

fdf is a national body set up by the Government to encourage workforce development and partnerships between employers and higher education across all qualifications and Foundation degrees specifically. ‘fdf works in partnership with all relevant agencies, institutions, organisations and interest groups to ensure that the development of work-based higher level skills training is driven by the needs of employers and students.’5 It was established as a national body by the 2003 higher education White Paper The Future of Higher Education and funded by HEFCE. Following the election of the coalition government, funding for the organisation was withdrawn in line with the proposed phasing out of all funding that ‘reflected the approach to employer engagement of the previous government’ and fdf was closed down in July 2011.6

2 National Committee into Higher Education (NCIHE) (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society, Main Report. London: HMSO 3 HEFCE (2007) Foundation degrees: key statistics 2001-02 to 2006-7. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England4 QAA (2004), Foundation degree qualification benchmark. Available at: www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/foundationDegree/benchmark/foundation_statement.asp5 fdf website http://www.fdf.ac.uk/ 6 HEFCE (2011) Consultation June 2011/20: Teaching funding and student number controls, paragraph 80


11

7 Department for Education and Skills (2004) Foundation degree Task Force Report to Ministers. London: DFES8 HEFCE (2010) Foundation degrees – key statistics 2001-02 to 2009-10. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England 9 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010) Skills for Sustainable Growth. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.10 Department for Education (2011) Review of Vocational Qualifications - Wolf Report http://www.education.gov.uk/16to19/qualificationsandlearning/a0074953/review-of-vocational- education-the-wolf-report11 E.g. Knight, T., Tennant. R., Dillon, L., and Weddell, E (2006) Evaluating the early years sector endorsed Foundation degree – a qualitative study of students views and experiences, National Centre for Social Research, DfES Research briefing RB751, London; Foundation Direct (nd) The Impact of Foundation degrees: The Student Experience University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth; Greenwood, M., Little, B and Burch, E, Collins, C., Kimura, M., and Yarrow, K (2008) The impact of Foundation degrees on students and the workplace, CHERI, Open University, London12 Callender, C., Wilkinson, D., and Hopkin, R. (2010) Career decision-making and career development of part-time Foundation degree students. Lichfield: fdf

The Labour government set a target of 100,000 Foundation degree students by 2010-11.7 Higher education institutions (HEIs) and further education colleges (FECs) have reported that 99,475 students were registered on Foundation degree programmes in 2009-10. Over 53,000 entrants were reported for 2009-10 compared to 48,000 in 2008-09. In 2009-10, 43% of Foundation degree students were studying part-time mainly in Education, Business and Administration Studies, and Social Studies. Over a half (51%) of part-time entrants were both registered and taught at an HEI - a much higher proportion than full-time entrants (33%) while the remaining half are registered at either an HEI or FEC but all of them are taught at FECs.8

In November 2010, the new Conservative and Liberal coalition government published Skills for Sustainable Growth9 which reiterated the importance of skills to our economic future and the need to improve skills to build sustainable growth, especially through work-related learning. They also have recognised the demand for more diverse higher education provision, including part-time study so that the existing workforce can up-skill and re-skill. However, at the time of writing, the Coalition government had not made any specific policy statements regarding Foundation degrees. Concerns about vocational education and qualifications, and practical skill formation, have focused on boosting Apprenticeships and re-vitalising Higher National qualifications while the Wolf report10 focused upon lower level vocational qualifications and did not discuss Foundation degrees.

1.2 Research contextA number of research studies have examined students’ experiences of Foundation degrees.11 While all the studies form a useful backdrop to this study, none of them track students over time, systematically explore part-time students and their career making, and the role of employers. It is against this background that fdf commissioned this programme of longitudinal research which aims to improve our understanding of the career learning and decision making of part-time students and graduates and the career guidance interventions required to support these.

Our study has consisted of two parts. The first part involved a survey undertaken in 2007/08 of 831 part-time Foundation degree UK domiciled students who were either in their first or their final year of study in 2007/08. The survey focused on their career intentions and ambitions and career development/learning and decision-making and the findings were reported in Career decision-making and career development of part-time Foundation degree students.12 The second part of the study consists of a follow-up survey of 296 of the students first surveyed in 2007/08. This second survey was conducted in 2010/11. And this forms the focus of this report.

The key findings of the 2007/08 survey were as follows:

• Foundation degrees provide part-time students with positive opportunities to engage in career and employment related higher education. There are very strong links between the choices students make and their employment, and their career aims and plans. The factors that trigger students’ decision to study, their choice of course, and their aspirations are primarily employment and career related.

• Foundation degree students’ motivations for study and their choices are in line with some of the key aims of this particular qualification in terms of being vocationally focused and equipping learners with the skills and knowledge relevant to their employment.

• Most Foundation degree students know what they want to do and have clear career ambitions and well-reasoned career plans. Their approach to their study is primarily instrumental. Therefore, before they started their Foundation degree, they made limited use of careers information, advice and guidance.


12

• When students do seek careers information, advice and guidance either before starting their course or during their course, they tend not to use their university careers services. Instead, they mostly rely on their employer or someone at work for such advice, which they also rate the most helpful sources of careers information, advice and guidance. This means that part-time Foundation degree students may not be receiving impartial or broadly informed career advice, when compared with the advice likely to be provided by a professional career advisor. In addition, the high proportion of students calling upon such employer-based careers advice demonstrates an appetite for such help and support, and potential missed opportunities for university career services. So while there is a demand for careers information, advice and guidance among part-time Foundation degree students, university career services are not fulfilling that demand.

• The key reason that students do not use their university’s career services is because they feel they do not need to. However, a sizable minority of students, irrespective of how long they have been studying, are unaware of their university/college’s career service. This suggests that university/colleges need to market their career services far more widely. In addition, they need to tailor their services to the specific needs and preferences of part-time students, and Foundation degree in particular, to ensure an effective service. University/college career services, therefore, may need to reassess their strategies both for delivering careers information, advice and guidance to part-time Foundation degree students, and for furthering the overall aims of Foundation degrees by encouraging student progression to articulated awards.

• Employers’ are generally supportive of Foundation degree students in their studies. Employees are particularly appreciative of this support when it is of practical nature such as when employers contribute financially to their tuition fees or course costs, or when they give them paid time off work to study.

• Employers do help a sizable minority of Foundation degree students in these ways. They are most likely to give employees paid time off work, followed by contributions to employees’ tuition fees, but less often to their course costs.

• Employers, however, are very selective in terms of in which employees they invest, and support financially. They help some of the most advantaged in the labour market - full-time employees from households with medium and high incomes who are taking courses in Engineering or Technology and Business. Those employees most likely to miss out are some of the most vulnerable in the labour force, including the low-paid and poorly qualified.

• The average cost of participating in a Foundation degree in 2007/08 was around £1,626 consisting of £1,098 spent on tuition fees and £528 on course related costs such as travel, books etc.

• The government provides minimal financial support towards these costs, and is far less generous towards part-time students when compared with the financial aid available to their full-time peers. The government assumes that part-time students can afford these costs because most are earning, or that their employer will pay for them. Students who have to rely on the government to meet their tuition and course costs are disadvantaged by comparison to full-time students – all of whom get some government-funded help with these costs.

• A small minority of part-time Foundation degree students receive financial help from the government with their tuition fees and course costs. When they do get assistance, the support is inadequate and does not cover all their costs.

• A minority of Foundation degree students had changed jobs and/or their employer since starting their course. However, most students reap some employment-related benefits as a direct result of their studies. For the vast majority their productivity and job satisfaction improves, they utilise the skills learnt on their course, and are given more responsibilities at work reflecting their improved knowledge. There are unanticipated benefits too, particularly improvements in relations with colleagues at work. In addition, over a half of students intend to continue studying once they complete their course.

The current study builds on these findings to assess the overall impact of Foundation degrees on these students’ working lives and how they have progressed three years later at a time of economic decline.

13

1.3 Aims and objectives of the researchThe overall aims of the research are:

• to collect data on the career intentions and ambitions of part-time Foundation degree students;

• to investigate the employment and other outcomes for students who have taken part-time Foundation degrees at HEIs;

and

• to investigate the views of employers on part-time Foundation degree students.

The current study, discussed in this report, is based on a survey undertaken in 2010/11 of 296 students of the students

surveyed in 2007/08. Thus, the report gives an indication of how these students have progressed two years after they were

first interviewed. It particularly focuses on the extent to which Foundation degrees have fulfilled their policy aims.

The findings of this study need to be considered alongside of another which investigates the views of employers on part-time

Foundation degree students and how these have changed over time.13

1.4 MethodologyFrom June to October 2008, we conducted a survey of 831 UK domiciled part-time Foundation degree students, 494 of

whom in the 2007/08 academic year were in their first year of study and 254 were in their final year of study. The students

were drawn from a total of 29 Universities in the UK. From September to November 2010 we conducted a follow-up survey

with 296 of the students originally interviewed in 2008. The research reported is based on this follow-up or Wave 2 survey

of respondents. The data were collected from online and telephone surveys of these 296 Foundation degree learners all of

whom had completed their studies by the time of their second interview.14

The population of students that the survey was designed to represent covered those studying part time, including those

studying on block release or studying during the evenings only. Those studying full-time for less than 24 weeks in the

academic year were also eligible for inclusion. It covered home students, domiciled in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern

Ireland and focused on those studying towards a qualification in one of the following subject areas (JACS Subject Code in

brackets):

• Engineering (H)

• Technologies (J)

• Social Studies(L)

• Law (M)

• Business and Administrative Studies (N)

• Education (X)

The survey data was weighted to correct for differential response rates by qualification aim, subject of study and age of the

student.

1.5 Outline of the reportThe rest of this chapter of the report looks at the characteristics of the students surveyed and the courses they are studying.

Chapter 2 explores the qualifications respondents had gained by 2010. Chapter 3 examines their career plans and how these

changed between 2008 and 2010, as well as their career satisfaction, and whether they had sought careers information,

advice and guidance. Chapter 4 considers the economic activity of respondents, looking at their employment patterns,

13 Mason, G (forthcoming) Employer support for part-time Foundation degree students14 The data reported on is for Foundation degree students and is a subsample of a bigger survey that also includes students studying for Honours undergraduate degrees and higher national qualifications. This study includes students who were either in their first or final year of study in 2008. For the report of the main study which includes Foundation degree students see Callender, C. and Wilkinson, D. (forthcoming) Futuretrack: Part-time students: two years on. Manchester: HECSU


14

stability of employment and other job characteristics and then goes on to see how the qualification they have achieved relates to their job. Chapter 5 focuses on respondents’ attitudes to study and the impact of courses on measures of skill development, personal development and work.

1.6 The characteristics of the students surveyedTables 1.1 to 1.2 provide some basic information about the students included in the survey and specifically look at student, course and institutional characteristics including support received by students from their employer.

Table 1.1 shows that most students surveyed were:

• aged 25 years or over at the start of the 2007/08 academic year (82%);• female (73%);• White (96%);• in full-time paid employment (78%); and• working in managerial and professional occupations (48%)

In addition, 62% of students had dependent children and more than two-thirds (68%) were either married, living with a partner or civil partner. The majority of students had household income below £50,000 per annum with a quarter had household income below £25,000 per annum. Some 57% of students had a level 3 qualification prior to starting their Foundation degree. One in five of students surveyed already held a higher education qualification at level 4 or 5 and a similar proportion had a Level 1 or 2 qualification on entry or no qualification at all. Roughly half the students were from a family where a partner, child or parent held a higher education qualification.

Given the students’ socio-economic characteristics, Foundation degrees appear to be attracting a high proportion of advantaged students. Consequently, it is questionable just how far Foundation degrees are meeting the widening participation agenda. This is a concern voiced by Fuller15 and others, who suggest that the widening participation agenda may be at odds with the agenda of filling skills gaps, although as we will see, the students’ skills were enhanced through their Foundation degrees. However, HEFCE data suggests that ‘the proportion of Foundation degree entrants from low participation neighbourhoods are generally higher than for undergraduates as a whole and also higher than for HND entrants, apart from young full-time entrants at HEIs.’16 As this and our other research confirms,17 there is some evidence that Foundation degrees are successful in attracting students from low participation neighbourhoods but also that employers will tend to support employees who they deem more likely to succeed, namely those already with a Level 4 qualification.

15 Fuller, A (2001) Credentialism, adults and part-time higher education in the United Kingdom: an account of rising take-up and some policy implications. Journal of Education Policy 16(3) 233-248 16 HEFCE (2010) op cit p 29 para 10217 Callender et al (2010) op cit

15

Table 1.1 Student characteristics by whether a starter or completer

Characteristic All % N Age at 31st August 20071 Under 25 years 16 4725 years or over 82 244Missing 2 4Gender Female 73 216Male 27 80Family type Single with no children 23 69Lone parent 7 21Couple with no children 13 39Couple with children 55 164Missing 1 3Ethnicity White 96 284Not White 4 11Missing + 1Current economic status2 Full-time paid employment 78 230Part-time paid employment 17 50Other 5 16Gross annual household income3 < £25,000 24 70≥£25,000 & <£50,000 28 83≥£50,000 20 60Missing/refused 28 84Social class of highest earner Managerial and professional 48 142Intermediate 43 127Routine, manual and unemployed 5 14Missing 4 13Highest qualification on entry Level 4/5 21 63Level 3 57 167Level 1/2/entry or none 22 66Partner/children/parent HE qualification No HE qualifications 51 152Hold HE qualifications 48 142Missing/don’t know 1 2 All 100 296

Base: All FD studentsNotes: + indicates a percentage that is greater than zero, but less than 0.5 1 Age calculated using full date of birth. 2 Students were asked to describe what they are mainly doing now. 3 Individual income if single / widowed / divorced / missing marital status. Household income if married / cohabiting / civil partnership.

Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010


16

1.7 About their Foundation degree courseThe majority of surveyed students were studying at an HEI (66%).18 Table 1.2 also shows the range of subjects covered in our sample with 57% of these Foundation degree students studying Education, 19% studying Business, 13% studying Social Science and 11% engineering/technology. Also shown are figures for the intensity of study based on the reporting of credit points. Nearly half the students (46%) were not able to report the number of credit points they were taking in the 2007/08 academic year and a further 27% reported points in line with study more than 100 per cent of an FTE.19 For those able to report credit points in line with part-time study 4% reported they were studying at less than half of an FTE and 22% reported study of between 50 and 99% of an FTE.

By way of comparison, Mason’s (2009) analysis of HESA data for UK domiciled students in 2007/08, found that 24% of part-time Foundation degree students were studying at less than half of a full-time equivalent. Clearly our measure of intensity of study is far from perfect reflecting a lack of understanding among students about the number of credits they are taking.

Central to government policy on vocational education, as articulated in Skills for Sustainable Growth, is the idea that

The cost of paying for training should ultimately be shared between employers, individuals and the state to reflect the benefit each receives. As well as being a better way of allocating scarce resource, it means that individuals and business are motivated to ensure that what is provided meets their needs.20

Table 1.2 shows that 45% of Foundation degree students gained financial support to pay for their tuition fees, 30% received some form of government funded help while 25% paid for themselves or with help from their family. Over and above this financial support for tuition, two-thirds of the Foundation degree students surveyed received some other form of help from their employer, mostly paid time off to study.

18 This is in part a reflection of our methodology and the type of institutions we approached.19 This strongly suggests that students do not view their Foundation degrees in terms of credit points, and may not understand the credit-point system. This finding is echoed in the main study of part-time students taking other qualification aims, and so is not particular to Foundation degree students. For the main study – see Callender et al (forthcoming) HECSU op cit20 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010) Skills for Sustainable Growth. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, para 28, p.10

17

Table 1.2 Foundation degree course and institution characteristics

Characteristic All % N Subject Engineering/technology 11 32Social Science or Law1 13 39Business 19 58Education 57 168Studying at the Open University? OU student 3 9Not OU student 97 287Intensity of study Less than 50 per cent FTE 4 1350-74 per cent 18 5475-99 per cent 4 11100 per cent or more 27 81Unknown 46 137Type of institution HEI 66 195FE college 34 101Sources used to pay tuition or course fee in 2007/08 (Base=290) Employer 45 118Myself 22 59Fee waiver/ financial assistance scheme 30 78Family/friends 3 8Other source 12 32Other forms of employer support when studying (Base=281) Paid time off to study 51 144Unpaid time off to study 11 32Paid towards costs of books/equipment 14 39None of the above 38 106 All 100 296

Base: All FD studentsNotes: + indicates a percentage or sample size that is greater than zero, but less than 0.5 1 Includes 5 Law students


18

2

Qualification achieved

Before considering how the qualification achieved relates to respondents’ careers and their activities at the time of the second survey it is useful to briefly consider what qualifications were achieved, when they were achieved, how long respondents took to complete their qualifications, and what further qualifications they had taken after completing the Foundation degree course.

2.1 The qualification achievedAll survey respondents were recorded as studying towards a Foundation degree at their first Wave 1 interview in 2008, but not all survey respondents in their second interview in 2010 reported that the qualification they had achieved was a Foundation degree. This was the case for the vast majority of respondents (73%) (Table 2.1), but a significant minority (17%) went on to complete an undergraduate degree, whilst a small number of graduates achieved other qualifications.

Table 2.1 The qualification achieved % N Foundation degree 73 215Undergraduate degree 17 51HND / HNC 3 9Other 7 21

All 100 296

Base: All FD students Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

The majority of graduates who achieved a Foundation degree reported they achieved a ‘pass’ (66%), a further 18% reported achieving ‘merit’ and 15% ‘distinction’ (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2 Final mark for Foundation degree graduates % N Distinction 15 31Merit 18 38Pass 66 141Other / don’t know 2 5

All 100 215

Base: All students who reported that they achieved a Foundation degree Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010


19

2.2 Progression to an honours degree programmeFoundation degrees are a qualification in their own right but they were designed so that students could progress to an honours degree programme. Those graduates who reported that they had achieved a Foundation degree were also asked ‘after taking your Foundation degree course, did you take a ‘top-up’ course to get a Bachelor’s degree?’ Here, 45% of respondents reported that they had taken a ‘top-up’ course. This question was only asked for those respondents who reported achieving a Foundation degree, so the 45% of positive responses to this particular survey question translates into 33% of all respondents, which when added to the 17% of all respondents who achieved an undergraduate degree (reported in Table 2.1) means that roughly half of our sample went on to undertake a ‘top-up’ course.

These progression rates compare well with national data. These data suggest that of those Foundation degree students who were registered at an HEI for their Foundation degree, and who qualified with a Foundation degree award in 2007-08, 42% who studied part-time for their Foundation degree went on to study an honours degree in 2008-09.21

Graduates who reported that they had achieved a Foundation degree and taken a ‘top-up’ course were asked why they wanted to progress to a bachelor’s degree. The responses are reported in Figure 2.1. Unfortunately, this question was not asked of those 17% of graduates who reported at the outset of the survey questionnaire that they had achieved an undergraduate degree (Table 2.1), so the responses do not cover all respondents who took a ‘top-up’ course. For roughly one-third of respondents it was always their intention to do a ‘top-up’ course, so for the majority of part-time Foundation degree students there was no intention to continue to study to Bachelor’s degree level when they had started to study for their Foundation degree.

Just over one-half of respondents took the ‘top-up’ course to improve their career prospects and a third to pursue a professional registration or qualification. Career change was the motivation for taking a ‘top-up’ course for only a small minority (11%) of Foundation degree graduates. The vast majority of graduates who took the ‘top-up’ course were therefore continuing on their career path. This is perhaps not surprising given the rates of employment throughout the study period and the strong relationship between employment and study highlighted in the first wave of the survey.

Figure 2.1 Why wanted to progress to a Bachelor’s degree

Base: All students who reported that they achieved a Foundation degree and took a ‘top-up’ course


Graduates who reported that they had achieved a Foundation degree and not taken a ‘top-up’ course were asked why they had not wanted to progress to a bachelor’s degree. The responses are reported in Figure 2.2. Here the most commonly cited response was ‘personal reasons’, which covers a wide range of reasons for not continuing to study. Other reasons were cited by a significant minority of respondents. These included 17% who felt that they could fulfil their career ambitions with a Foundation degree; 16% who had had enough of studying; 14% who cited ‘financial reasons’ and 11% whose employer would not support them to undertake further study.

51

33

33

24

11

0 20 40 60

21 HEFCE (2010) Foundation degrees – key statistics 2001-02 to 2009-10. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England

Per cent of respondents


20

It is also worth noting that 13% of respondents reported that they could not find a suitable ‘top-up’ course, which indicates some supply problems with ‘top-up’ courses. Unfortunately, the number of respondents who reported this reason for not having taken a ‘top-up’ course was too small to investigate further in any detail. However, there were respondents in all of our four subject areas reporting this reason for not undertaking further study, so the supply problem did not appear to be limited to particular subject areas.

Figure 2.2 Why did not want to progress to a Bachelor’s degree

47

17

16

14

13

11

4

Our sample of 296 respondents who reported that they had completed their Foundation degree came from both the original starter and completer cohorts – those who at the time of their first interview in 2008 were either in their first or final year of study. More than half (56%) were in the original starter cohort. Completion dates were spread between April 2008 and November 2010 with roughly three out of ten completing in 2008 and roughly four out of ten completing in 2010, see Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Year qualification completed % N 2008 29 872009 32 942010 39 115

All 100 296


Table 2.4 shows the duration of courses by whether the respondent achieved a Foundation degree or undergraduate degree. Not surprisingly undergraduate degrees typically took longer to complete. Just over a half of respondents that completed a Foundation degree took 4 years or more, whilst 78% of respondents that completed an undergraduate degree took 4 years or more.

Per cent of respondentsBase: All students who reported that they achieved a Foundation degree and did not take a ‘top-up’ course Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

Personal reasons

Can fulfil career ambitions with Foundation degree

Had enough of studying

Financial reasons

No suitable top-up courses available

My employer will not support me

Don’t know

0 20 40 60

21

Table 2.4 Course duration by qualification achieved

Foundation degree Undergraduate degree

% N % N Less than 3 years 5 11 7 33-4 years 44 94 16 84 years or more 51 109 78 39

All 100 215 100 51


2.3 Subsequent qualificationsAll respondents were asked if once they had completed their qualification set out in Table 2.1, whether they had taken any other courses or started studying towards another higher education qualification. Their responses are outlined in Table 2.5. Well over half (57%) had done so, mostly on a part-time basis (92%), and most had yet to complete this course/qualification.

Table 2.5 Further education and training % Base (N) Taken another courses since completing qualification 57 215 Number of courses: One 74 Two 15 Three or more 10 All who had taken a course 100 123 Still studying 71 Completed course 29All who had taken a course 100 123 Studied full-time or part-time Part-time 92 Full-time 8 All who had taken a course 100 123


Turning just to those who had achieved a Foundation degree and then took another subsequent course, they most frequently were aiming for a Bachelor’s degree.

Table 2.6 Most subsequent qualification taken by those who had achieved a Foundation degree

% N Postgraduate qualification 8 Bachelors degree 39 Top-up Bachelors degree - for people with a Foundation degree 28 Other 25 All who had taken a course 100 123

Base: All students who achieved a Foundation degree and took a follow-up course Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010


22

Note the figure of 28% of respondents who reported taking a top-up course here is only based on those who reported taking a course following completion of their Foundation degree. This represents 16% of all who had achieved a Foundation degree. Note this is very much lower than the 45% of all respondents with a Foundation degree who reported having taken a top-up course in Section 2.1.

There are a number of reasons for this discrepancy. First, a small number of respondents reported that they had not taken any other courses since completing their Foundation degree, but later in the survey reported that they had taken a ‘top-up’ course to get a bachelors degree. Second, the qualifications listed in Table 2.6 relates to the most recent qualification or course taken, so it is possible that some respondents had taken more than one course and one of the earlier courses was a ‘top-up’ course. Third, for those respondents who reported that they had taken only one follow-up course since completing their Foundation degree, a number reported that this course was not a ‘top-up’ course, but one of the other qualifications reported in Table 2.1, but elsewhere in the survey they reported that they had taken a top-up course to get a Bachelors degree.

Most of these subsequent courses were short courses with the majority lasting less than two years (Table 2.7).

Table 2.7 How long will it/did it take to complete this course or qualification

% N Less than one year 30 One to two years 56 More than two years 14 All who had taken a course 100 123

Base: All students who achieved a Foundation degree and took a follow-up course Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

As Figure 2.3 clearly shows, the vast majority of respondents could not have undertaken their subsequent course if they had not gained their Foundation degree. In other words, their Foundation degree was a springboard to yet further education and training. Moreover, their Foundation degree had instilled a greater interest in the intrinsic rewards of studying, rather than just seeing their course instrumentally, in terms of career development. As Figure 2.4 shows, the key reason they had undertaken their course was because they were interested in the subject, although skills enhancement along with job and career development were also significant motivations. These findings are interesting when compared with their motivations for undertaking their original Foundation degree reported in the Wave 1 survey, when the most common reason for taking their Foundation degree was to develop new or existing skills.22

Figure 2.3 How likely respondents would have been to undertake subsequent course

if had not taken original Foundation degree

Base: All FD students who took a course following completion of their Foundation degree Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

22 Callender et al, 2010 op cit

10% Very Likely

13% Likely

15% Unlikely

62% Very unlikely

23

23 Callender et al, 2010 op cit

Figure 2.4 Why took the course

t Very importantt Fairly importantt Not very importantt Not at all important

Base: All FD students who took a course following completion of their Foundation degreeSource: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

Respondents who had taken a subsequent course were equally likely to have paid for their course tuition fees themselves as to have received help from their employer with these costs. Just over a third were self-funded and a similar proportion had had all, or some, of their fees paid for by their employer. A quarter received a fee waiver or financial assistance primarily from the government. Again, there are some interesting differences when compared with the findings from the Wave 1 survey in terms of who paid for their original Foundation degree courses. Employers were more likely to have contributed to tuition fees - some 41% had while students were less likely to have paid the fees themselves (30%).23

Figure 2.5 Who pays fees for this course

Base: All FD students who took a course following completion of their Foundation degreeSource: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

Interested in the subject/course

To develop a broader range of skills or knowledge

To help change or improve job opportunities and career options

To help get on in present job/career

To develop a more specialist of skills or knowledge

Required by my employer

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


74 23 31

69 27 31

68 22 3

64 17 12 7

60 31 7 1

18 18 11 53

7


Employer

Self

Fee waiver/financial assistance

Other source

No fees paid

Family/friends

0 302010 40

24

This chapter explores graduates’ career plans and how they have changed over time. It also discusses how the graduates felt their careers were progressing and what careers information advice and guidance they had sought.

3.1 Career plansGraduates were asked how their ideas about their career have changed since they started their course. They were asked this question both in their first interview in the 2008 Wave 1 survey when most were still studying, and again in their second interview in 2010 in the Wave 2 survey once they had graduated. This allows us to see if their career plans had changed between these two points of time (Figure 3.1). In 2010, just over a quarter (27%) of respondents reported they had a clearer idea about their career plans since starting their course while just over a third (34%) said their original plans were reinforced, and just over a quarter there had been no change (27%). Only 8% reported that their ideas had changed completely and 3% that they had a less clear idea. The proportion of graduates giving these responses had not changed much since they were interviewed in 2008. The most notable change is that fewer had clear career plans in 2010 than in 2008.

Figure 3.1 How ideas about career plans had changed since starting their course

t Clearer ideat Ideas have changed completelyt Less clear ideat Original career plans reinforcedt No charge


Graduates were also asked to rate how clear their long-term career plans were at the time of their interview. At one extreme they could report that they have “a clear idea about what I want to do” and at the other extreme “no idea about what I want to do”. Again, students were asked this question both in their first interview in the Wave 1 survey in 2008 and in their second interview in the Wave 2 survey in 2010 to assess changes over time (Figure 3.2). In general respondents in 2010, were clear about their long-term career plans. Over a quarter (27%) reported at the extreme that they have “a clear idea about what I want to do” and just under three-quarters reported a score of less than 3 indicating a large degree of clarity about what they want to do.

3Career plans, satisfaction and information, advice and guidance

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


27 8 3 34 27

33 5 5 32 25

Wave 2

Wave 1


25

However, there are some interesting changes in respondents’ ratings of their long-term careers between 2008 and 2010. Over time, it appears that graduates have become less clear about their long-term career plans. For instance, in 2008 61% of students placed themselves in the two top ratings of clarity compared with just 48% of graduates in 2010.

These findings echo those shown in Figure 3.1. Together they suggest that for some graduates their higher education experiences had altered or shifted their career plans. The experience had been transformative in some way and changed their ideas about what they wanted to do in the long-term. This may well be because of the benefits of study and the way their new qualification opened up different opportunities – issues discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. Alternatively, it may be because they were feeling the effects of the recession and continuing employment uncertainties which might have thwarted their original career ambitions.

Figure 3.2 How graduates rated the clarity of their long-term career planning

t Wave 1t Wave 2


3.2 Career satisfactionOverall, graduates were satisfied with their careers with just under a half being very satisfied and slightly more being fairly satisfied and just 6% being not satisfied (Table 3.1). However there were few differences among graduates in levels of satisfaction. The most notable difference is that graduates who had studied for their Foundation degree at an HEI were more satisfied with their careers than those who had studied at an FEC (96% compared with 88%) (Figure 3.3).

Table 3.1 Career satisfaction

Degree of satisfaction % N Very satisfied 46 135Fairly satisfied 48 141Not very satisfied 4 12Not at all satisfied 2 7

All 100 295

Base: All FD students. Notes: 1 respondent did not answer the question Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

No idea what I want to do 7

6

5

4

3

2

A clear idea about what I want to do 1

1

2

6

9

22

31

30

3

2

11

10

26

21

27



26

Figure 3.3 Career satisfaction by graduate characteristics: Percentage very or fairly satisfied

Base: All FD students. Notes: 1 respondent did not answer the question Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

3.3 Careers information, advice and guidanceAll the graduates were asked if they had sought any careers information, advice or guidance since they were last interviewed in 2008. Only 51% of graduates had done so. Of those graduates who had sought careers information advice and guidance, they most frequently called on their employer or someone at work (61%), followed by their family and friends (45%) (Figure 3.4). It is noteworthy that only a quarter used the career service at their university or college although 39% of respondents had talked to a lecturer or someone else at their university/college about their careers.

Figure 3.4 Sources of careers information, advice and guidance: percentage used

Base: All FD students who sought careers information advice and guidanceSource: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

All

FemaleMale

Aged less than 25Aged 25 or more

Level 4/5Level 3

Less than Level 3

Engineering / TechnologySocial Science / Law

BusinessEducation

Family member study in HENo family member study in HE

Personal contribution to feesEmployer fee support

Government fee supportOther fee support

Higher education instituteFurther education college

85%80% 90% 95% 100%Per cent of respondents

93

9395

9394

9394

92

8993

9494

9394

9395

9490

9688

Recruitment agency

Public or private careers agency

Careers service at the university / college

Lecturer or someone at university / college

Family and friends

Employer / someone at my workplace


9

11

25

39

45

61

27

Of those respondents using a particular source of careers information, advice, and guidance, by far the most helpful source was their employer or someone at their workplace (76%) followed by their university/college career service (49%) (Figure 3.5).

The timing of when graduates who had sought careers information, advice, and guidance and actually looked for help varied depending on the source they used (Figure 3.6). Those relying on their family and friends most often called upon them both before and after completing their studies (61%) as did those calling on their employer or someone at work (58%). In contrast, respondents were most likely to talk to a lecturer or someone at their university or college before completing their course while they were more likely to approach the university/college careers service once they had completed their studies.

Figure 3.5 Percentage of graduates who rated source most helpful given they used the source of careers information,

advice and guidance


Figure 3.6 Whether graduates sought careers information, advice and guidance before completing their study, after completing

their study or both

t Beforet Aftert Both


Overall, these findings echo those of the first survey. In 2008, students in their first year of study before starting their course were most likely to rely on their employer or someone at work (33%) for careers information, advice and guidance, which they also rated the most useful source, rather than their university/college careers service (28%). This meant that part-time Foundation degree students at the start of their studies may not have been receiving impartial or broadly informed

Recruitment agency

Public or private careers agency

Careers service at the university / college

Lecturer or someone at university / college

Family and friends



44

37

49

44

38

76

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


13

46

30

26

19

39

61

34

31

15 27 58

Family and friends

Lecturer / someone at university/college

Careers service at the university/college



28

career advice, when compared with the advice likely to have been provided by a professional career advisor. In addition, the high proportion of students who called upon such employer-based careers advice in 2008 demonstrated an appetite for such help and support, and potential missed opportunities for university career services. So while there was a demand for careers information, advice and guidance among part-time Foundation degree students before starting their course, university career services were not fulfilling that demand. In 2010, however, at a different stage in the respondents’ careers, and especially once they had completed their studies, respondents were more likely to use their university/college career service for careers information, advice and guidance than before starting their studies. Even so, university career services remained a far less popular and useful source of careers information, advice and guidance compared with employers or someone at their workplace.

29

4Economic activity in the 2010 survey

4.1 Employment status Employment rates of survey respondents were fairly stable before starting, during and after completing their course. The percentage of respondents who were full-time employees increased slightly following the course, whilst the percentage of students who were part-time employees fell (Table 4.1). Respondents doing something else also increased slightly. This increase was largely because more respondents were unemployed and looking for work after their course than previously and also because some respondents were in full-time education or training after completing their part-time course.

Table 4.1 Employment status before, during and after the course Before (%) During (%) After (%)

Full-time employee 74 75 78

Part-time employee 23 22 17

Other 3 2

5

All (Base N) 100 (296)


Further analysis of these employment patterns is shown in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3. They indicate that 90% of respondents were employed before, during and after their course and that 71% of these were always employed full-time and 10% were always employed part-time. Around 20% switched between full-time and part-time employment, with the most common employment pattern being in part-time employment before and during study and full-time employment after study.

Table 4.2 Stability of employment patterns (%)

Employed before, during and after course 90

Not employed before, during and after course 1

Switched between states 9

All (Base N) 100 (296)



30


Employed full-time before, during and after course 71

Employed part-time before, during and after course 10

Switched between states 20

All (Base N) 100 (296)

Base: All FD students who were employed before, during after their course Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

For those who were employees both during and after study they were asked if they were employed by the same employer and 83% of employees were working for the same employer. Overall there is a high level of employment continuity for part-time Foundation degree students.

4.2 Characteristics of job held at 2010 interviewThe survey provides some detail of the characteristics of the jobs held at the time of the 2010 interview. These are shown in Tables 4.4 to Table 4.6. Table 4.4 shows that most of the survey respondents in employment were working in the public sector and were in permanent jobs. Job tenure varied considerably with roughly one-in-six respondents working for the same organisation for less than two years and around one-quarter having been with the same organisation for ten years or more. Very few respondents (7%) worked in small workplaces with less than ten people; working in very large workplaces with more than one thousand people was more common (11%).


Sector

Public 57

Private (including self-employed) 36

Voluntary 6

Permanent or temporary

Permanent 88

Self employed / freelance 4

Temporary 9

Job Tenure

Less than two years 17

Two to five years 21

Five to ten years 37

Ten years or more 24

Employer Size

Less than 10 people 7

10 to 24 people 27

25 to 99 people 32

100 to 999 people 22

1000 or more people 11

Don’t know 2

All (Base) 100 (280)

Base: All employed FD students Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

31

Table 4.5 shows the occupation of the respondents and compares it to their occupation at the time of the 2008 interview. This shows that a little over one-half of respondents were in managerial or professional occupations in 2010 whilst the vast majority of other respondents were in intermediate occupations; relatively few were in routine manual jobs. This is in contrast to the situation in 2008 when only about a third of respondents were in managerial and professional occupations indicating that upon completing their qualifications employed graduates had moved into higher occupation jobs.

Table 4.5 Individual occupation in 2010 and occupation of highest household earner in 2008 2010 Occupation 2008 Occupation (%) (%)

Managers and professional 53 36

Intermediate 45 56

Routine manual 2 6

Don’t know 1 2

All (Base) 100 (296)


The industry pattern of the survey respondents largely reflects the subject mix shown in Table 1.2. More than half of our survey respondents had completed an Education qualification and almost half of the employed respondents worked in Education. Employment was also common in Other Public Services (22% in Human health and social work; and 9% in Public Administration), whilst a significant minority worked in Manufacturing (10%) and Business Services (8%).

Table 4.6 Industry of employment in 2010 Industries (%)

Manufacturing 10

Other Production 3

Business Services1 8

Public Administration 9

Education 45

Human Health and Social work 22

Other Services 2

All (Base) 100 (280)

Base: All employed FD students Notes 1. Includes Transport and storage and Information and communication industries Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

Figure 4.1 shows the gender mix of employment; whether the type of work a respondent did was done mostly by men or mostly by women. Roughly one-third of women worked in a situation where their work was done almost exclusively by women, and a further 44% reported that they worked in a situation where their work was done mostly by women. The equivalent figures were lower for men, such that 13% of men worked in a situation where their work was done almost exclusively by men, and 40% worked in a situation where their work was done mostly by men.

Only 18% of women reported that they worked in a situation where their work was done by a fairly equal mixture of men and women, compared with 37% of men.

These gender employment patterns reflect the subjects of study covered by this report; notably that more than half of the respondents had completed an Education qualification and almost half worked in Education.


32

Figure 4.1 Gender mix of employment situation

t Woment Ment All

Base: All employed FD studentsSource: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

4.3 Whether current job related to long-term career plansFigure 4.2 shows that most respondents (85%) were in a job that was related to their long term career plans. There was some variation by respondent characteristics. More than 90% of graduates who already had a level 4/5 qualification before they started their course or who got support with their course fees from an ‘other’ source were in jobs related to their long term career plans. However, only around 70% of graduates who had studied Business or who had paid at least some of their fees themselves were in jobs that were related to their long term career plans. This means that almost one- third of these latter groups of students were not in jobs related to their career plans.

10%0% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Almost exclusively by men

Mainly by men

Be a fairly equal mixture of men and women

Mainly by women

Almost exclusively by women


4

15

23

35

23

13

40

37

7

2

1

5

28

44

31

33

Figure 4.2 Whether current job is related to long term career plans: percentage of respondents

All

FemaleMale


Level 4/5Level 3

Less than Level 3


BusinessEducation





40%20%0% 60% 80% 100%Per cent of respondents

85

8389

7886

9185

78

8885

7189

8188

708687

92

8682

Base: All employed FD studentsSource: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

4.4 Relationship between qualification and jobEmployed respondents were asked how relevant their qualification was to their job; this covered the extent to which their qualification was: related to their job; needed to do their job, and the extent to which other people doing their type of job had qualifications like theirs and whether they used the skills they learned on their course in their present job. The results are shown in Figure 4.3.

Most graduates reported that their qualification is a great deal related to their job (66%) and just 5% reported that it is not at all related to their job. Similar figures are reported in relation to whether used the skills they learned on their course in their present job: 60% reported a great deal and 2% not at all.

Fewer respondents reported ‘a great deal’ when asked if the qualification was needed to do their job (27%) and whether other people doing their type of job had qualifications like theirs (20%). The equivalent percentages of respondents who reported ‘to some extent’ were 27% and 31% respectively. For both questions roughly three out of ten respondents reported that the qualification was ‘not at all’ needed to do their job and ‘not at all’ did other people doing their type of job had qualifications like theirs.

This indicates that qualifications are highly relevant for respondents’ work, but not entirely necessary to do the job.


34

Figure 4.3 Relevance of qualification to job

t A great dealt To some extentt A littlet Not at all

Base: All employed FD students


The appropriateness of jobs to people with respondents’ level of qualification is shown in Figure 4.4. This provides further evidence that qualifications are strongly related to the jobs undertaken by survey respondents. Almost one half of employed graduates reported that their job was very appropriate and a further 38% that their job was quite appropriate. A minority of 15% reported that their job was neither appropriate on inappropriate, not very or not at all appropriate.

Figure 4.4 How appropriate is respondents’ job for someone with their level of qualification


4.5 Job conditions, including payWe now turn to consider other aspects of employment. First we consider the extent to which respondents’ jobs offered a competitive salary, continual skills development, interesting and challenging work, long-term security and opportunities to reach managerial level. Figure 4.5 shows that most respondents reported that their employment offered interesting and challenging work to a great extent. For other items, less than one-half of respondents reported ‘a great extent’. Continual skills development was thought to be offered to a great extent by 47% of respondents, and long-term security to a great extent by 37% of respondents. The fewest respondents reported that their job offered opportunities to reach managerial level (30%) or a competitive salary (22%).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


27

60

67

27

26

20

15

13

7

20 31

Is that qualification or course needed to do your job?

Do you use the skills you learned on the course in your present job?

Is that qualification or course related to your job?

Do other people doing your type of job have qualifications like yours?

5

2

32

2822

47% Very appropriate

38% Quite appropriate

7% Unlikely

5% Very unlikely

3% Very unlikely

35

Workers’ perceptions of employment after completing their qualifications was that it typically offered work that was interesting and challenging, but not at a competitive salary or with opportunities to progress to managerial level.

Figure 4.5 Further job characteristics

t A great extentt To some extentt Not at all

Base: All employed FD students Notes Only asked of employees Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

In this context we consider an overall measure of job satisfaction. Employed respondents were asked ‘all things considered, how satisfied would you say you are with your current job?’ This indicates a high level of job satisfaction. Almost nine out of ten respondents reported that they were either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their job. Roughly an equal number reported both options. The most satisfied were respondents that had completed an Engineering or Technology qualification and among the least satisfied were those who completed a Business or Education qualification. Respondents who had fee support from ‘other’ sources were the least satisfied, which is particular striking in relation to the findings in Figure 4.2 that these respondents were the most likely to report that their current job was related to their long-term career plans.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


30

37

47

72

41

46

48

23

29

17

7

5

22 48

Opportunities reach managerial level (1)

Long-term security

Continual skills development

Interesting and challenge work

A competitive salary 30


36

Figure 4.6 Job satisfaction by respondent characteristics


Finally we consider annual pay in Figure 4.7. Here we restrict our analysis to respondents who were employed full-time and

reported pay as either an annual, monthly or weekly amount. We therefore exclude around 8% of respondents who reported

hourly pay, because we do not have information on their weekly hours of work in order to calculate an annualised figure.

The average pay of our sample of respondents was a little under £24,000. Figure 4.7 also indicates considerable variation by

respondent characteristics. Here care needs to be taken because some of the figures are based on a relative small number of

observations and hence will have a high degree of sampling variability and also may be prone to high or low outlier values.

The range of reported pay goes from £7,000 per annum to £70,000, so appears to be in a realistic range.

On average, male respondents earned considerably more than female respondents (£34,000 compared to £20,000), but this

in part reflects differences in subjects taken and subsequent sector of employment. Respondents who studied Engineering

or Technology (87% men) had average pay of £30,000 compared with respondents who studied Education (92% women)

had average pay of £23,000. Such gender differences in pay are well documented.24 They arise from both horizontal and

vertical occupational segregation whereby women are concentrated in low-paying occupations and are less likely than men

to be in more senior, higher paid jobs and from the fact that women are far more likely than men to work part-time.

Older workers earned more than younger workers (£24,000 compared to £20,000) reflecting their greater work experience

and there were interesting differences by level of entry qualification. Respondents who started their course with high and

low level qualifications earned similar amounts (£28,000), but those who started their course with a level 3 qualification

All

FemaleMale


Level 4/5Level 3

Less than Level 3


BusinessEducation






89

8893

9389

8890

89

9793

8688

9088

899191

83

8989

24 Equality and Human Rights Commission (2011) How fair is Britain? Equality, Human Rights and Good Relations. The First Triennial Review. Available at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/triennial_review/how_fair_is_britain_-_complete_report.pdf Accessed 14/07/2011

37

earned considerably less (£20,000). This indicates similar pay for people who were re-skilling, achieving a new qualification at the same level as their existing qualification, as those from low skill groups, who have been the target of higher education widening participation policies. This latter group increased their qualification levels considerably through their course of study.

Respondents who received help with their course fees from their employer also had higher pay than respondents who did not receive such support. This is in line with the previous survey which found that employers supported students from high income households and from the highest social class groups.

Figure 4.7 Average pay by respondent characteristics

Base: All employed FD students who worked full-time – excluding those who reported pay as an hourly amount Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

All

FemaleMale


Level 4/5Level 3

Less than Level 3


BusinessEducation





100 20 30 40

Average annual salary (£’000)

24

2034

2024

2820

28

3033

1823

2523

2328

1820

2522.2

38

5.1 Attitudes to studyRespondents were asked whether they were likely to do the course they had recently completed if they had to make the choice now. Figure 5.1 shows that on the whole respondents were reasonably happy with their choices about their course, institution, qualification, the decision to study part-time and decision to enter higher education.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) were ‘very likely’ to do the same course at the same place. A further 21% reported that they were ‘likely’ to do the same course at the same place. Around one-fifth of respondents reported that they were ‘very likely’ to do a similar course at a different place.

Relatively few respondents reported that they would have made very different choices; 12% were ‘very likely’ to do a different course; 9% were ‘very likely’ to do a different qualification; just 5% were ‘very likely’ to chose to study full-time and 5% were ‘very likely’ to choose not to enter higher education.

Figure 5.1 Likelihood of doing the course now

t Very likelyt Likelyt Not very likelyt Not at allt Don't know


5The impact of completing a qualification

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


12

20

63

22

33

21

38

25

9

9

5

5

25

8

7

Do a different course

Do a similar course at a different place

Do the same course at the same place

Do a different qualification

Choose to study full-time

Choose not to enter higher education

6

21

27

27

63

57

37

23

29


39

There was also generally a positive view about courses representing ‘value for money’ and that time spent in higher education was a good investment. Figure 5.2 shows that 60% of respondents strongly agreed that their course was good value for money and 72% reported that the time spent in higher education was a good investment.

There was also a widespread acknowledgement that ‘being a part-time student is hard work’. More than four out of five respondents strongly agreed with this statement with just 3% strongly disagreeing or slightly disagreeing.

However, hoped for career changes were not reported by a large majority of respondents. Just three out of ten strongly agreed that their course has ‘led to the career changes I had hoped for’, with a further 22% slightly agreeing. More than three out of ten strongly disagreed or slightly disagreed. Again, this may reflect the negative and uncertain employment context affecting respondents arising from the economic recession.

Figure 5.2 Assessment of the value of the course

t Strongly agreet Slightly agreet Neither agree or disagreet Slightly disagreet Strongly disagree


There were a range of things that were reported as what respondents valued the most about their undergraduate education (Figure 5.3). The most prevalent, reported by more than half the respondents (58%), was ‘the knowledge and skills that they had acquired’. In a similar vein, nearly one-third of respondents reported the most valuable thing was ‘the skills acquired that they subsequently used in their work’ and ‘personal development’.

Relatively few respondents reported that the most valuable thing about their undergraduate education was related specifically to their careers; 13% reported ‘the career opportunities it has led to’ and just 2% ‘it has enabled me to change careers’.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


60 22 10

72

81

30

20

14

22

My course was good value for money

The time I spent in HE was a good investment

Being a part-time student is hard work

My course has led to the career changes I had hoped for

5

2

15

5

2

17

2

2

16


40

Figure 5.3 What graduates valued the most about their course

Don’t know

No value

Other

It has enabled me to change careers

The qualification has enabled me to obtain my current job (1)

The career opportunities it has led to

The experience of studying for a degree or qualification

It has enabled me to embark on a particular career path

The experience of higher education

My achievement or attainment

The skills acquired that I have subsequently used in my work

Personal development

The knowledge and skills I have acquired

20%0% 40% 60% 80%


0

1

8

2

13

13

14

15

18

20

31

31

58

Base: All FD students Notes: Only asked to employed respondents Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

5.2 Impact on skill development and use of these skillsWe further explore the impact of the course on skills, focussing on a range of different skills that respondents reported that their course had enabled them to develop. First we look at a range of skills and identify the extent to which they were used by respondents in their current jobs (Figure 5.4). Then we consider the extent to which the course enabled respondents to develop these skills (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.4 clearly shows that most of the skills considered were used ‘a lot’ by the majority of respondents in their jobs. The only exception was numeracy skills which were used a lot by just 27% of respondents. However, a further 49% of respondents reported that they used numeracy skills ‘a little’. All of the skills can therefore be considered as important and in widespread use by those in work.

41

Numeracy skills

Ability to work in a team

Computer literacy

Inter-personal skills

Spoken communication

Logical thinking and problem solving

Self-discipline

Written communication

Ability to analyse material and situations critically

Ability to apply knowledge

Subject knowledge

40%20%0% 60% 80% 100%


Figure 5.4 Use of skills

68

27

23

49

54 36

71 25

72 21

64 33

67 27

62 32

71 26

82 15

80 19

t A lott A little

Base: All FD students


The extent to which these skills were developed through respondents’ courses is, however, somewhat mixed. We limit our

analysis sample to anyone who reported that they used a given skill either ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ in their current job. As noted above,

this includes the majority of respondents in each case.

Figure 5.5 Development of skills

t A lott A little

Base: All FD students who used the listed skills in their job


Numeracy skills

Ability to work in a team

Computer literacy

Inter-personal skills

Spoken communication

Logical thinking and problem solving

Self-discipline

Written communication

Ability to analyse material and situations critically

Ability to apply knowledge

Subject knowledge

40%20%0% 60% 80% 100%


33

18

45

40

37 42

45 46

47 44

49 43

52 37

57 37

74 24

88 9

78 21


42

Figure 5.5 shows that subject knowledge, ability to apply knowledge and ability to analyse material and situations critically were developed ‘a lot’ by courses for the vast majority of respondents (for 88%, 78% and 74% of respondents respectively). Adding to these figures the numbers where courses developed these skills ‘a little’ we get percentages that are very close to 100% (97%, 99% and 98%). These skills therefore seem to be developed well across Foundation degree study.

Other skills were developed less well by the courses. Focusing only on where respondents reported that the course had enabled them to develop their skills a lot, we find that this was the case for roughly one-half of respondents for written communication (57%), self discipline (52%), logical thinking and problem solving (49%), spoken communication (47%) and inter-personal skills (45%). Again for these skills, a large percentage of respondents reported that their course enabled them to develop these skills ‘a little’. Taking these responses into consideration meant that courses had helped to develop all of these skills for around nine out of ten of respondents.

Computer literacy skills were developed in their course by fewer respondents (37% a lot and 42% a little) with similar proportions for the ability to work in a team (33% a lot and 45% a little). The least well developed skills were numeracy skills developed a lot for just 18% of respondents and a little by a further 40%, leaving more than two out of five respondents who reported that numeracy skills were not developed at all in their course. Small sample sizes do not allow us to fully unpick the characteristics of respondents who report no skill development on their course. However, lack of development of numeracy skills is more common for students who studied Education. The evidence above suggest that there is some scope for better development of computing, team working and numeracy skills through Foundation degree study.

5.3 Impact on personal developmentWe further examine the impact of the course on personal development in Figure 5.6. Here, respondents were asked if a number of things had happened as a result of their course. Only 1% of respondents reported that none of the listed changes had happened, so for almost all respondents their course had some impact on their development. Some of the impacts were widespread, but others much less so. Even so these effects of learning are important as they highlight the social impact of learning and how learning has social returns rather than just economic returns for both individuals and society as a whole.

More than one-half of respondents reported that ‘as a result of the course’ they enjoyed learning more: were more aware of the benefits. A further 36% reported that ‘the course helped’ them enjoy learning more and be more aware of the benefits. Other widespread impacts were on personal development; 42% reported that ‘as a result of the course’ they developed as a person and a further 51% reported that ‘the course helped’ them develop as a person.

Overall, the course had some impact in terms of personal development on more than 90% of respondents and only a slightly lower percentage (87%) reported an impact of the course on enjoying learning more. For 83% of respondents the course had some impact on improved self-confidence; and more than one-half (55%) of respondents reported that their overall level of happiness increased either as a result of the course or that the course had helped.

The impact of the course on families and community engagement was less widespread, but still evident for non-trivial percentages of respondents. Overall, the course had some impact on the family becoming more interested in learning for one-third of respondents and 18% of respondents reported that relationships with the family had improved either as a result of the course or that the course had helped. The course also had an impact on 12% of respondents becoming involved in voluntary work, community activities or campaigning work.

43

Figure 5.6 Impact of course on measures of personal development

Relationships with family improved

Become involved in voluntary work/community activities/campaigning work

Children/family become more interested in learning

Overall level of happiness increased

Self-confidence improved

Developed yourself as a person

Enjoy learning more: more aware of benefits

40%20%0% 60% 80% 100%


5 13

7 5

14 19

18 37

39 44

42

51

51

36

t As a result of the courset The course helped


5.4 Impact on workNext we turn to the impact of study on some general employment related measures (Figure 5.7). These questions ask whether any of a number of listed work-related changes had happened ‘as a direct result of the course’ or whether ‘the course helped’ these changes to take place.

The results indicate that many workers felt better qualified to do their jobs, have a deeper understanding of their work and were more confident and better able to do their work. For each of these measures the course either had a direct impact or helped for roughly nine out of ten workers. For other changes the responses ranged from around one-half of workers to around two-thirds of workers. Roughly two-thirds of workers reported that they had taken on more responsibilities, are taken more seriously at work, were more enthusiastic about their work and their work was more satisfying. Roughly three out of five reported that their career prospects had improved and one-half of employees that they were more likely to stay with their employer.


44

Figure 5.7 Work changes as a result of the course

Have your career prospects’ improved

Are you more enthusiastic about your work

Is your work more satisfying

Are you more likely to stay with your employer (1)

Are you taken more seriously at work

Have you taken on more responsibilities at work

Has your ability to do your work improved

Are you more confident about your work

Do you have a deeper understanding of your work

Do you feel better qualified to do your job

40%20%0% 60% 80% 100%


33

31

29

27

28

36

36

23

35 30

39 28

44 42

51 36

53

59

37

30

t Direct result of courset Course helped

Base: All employed FD students Notes: 1. Only asked to employees Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

Overall a wide range of work-related changes were positive for the majority of respondents. However, for most changes, only a minority of respondents reported that the change was directly as a result of the course, with large numbers of workers who reported that the course had helped to institute these changes rather than the change was directly attributable to the course.

5.5 Plans and expectations for the futureFinally we consider expectations and plans for the future. First we look at employment changes hoped for over the next three to five years, then explore the reasons why respondents want to change jobs and finally whether respondents think that as a result of doing their course their income will go up or down over the next three years.

Figure 5.8 shows that most respondents hope to experience some employment change. The hoped for changes or lack of changes are pretty much evenly split in three. Roughly one-third hope to change jobs but stay with the same employer, another one-third hope to change jobs and employer, and the final one-third hope to stay win their current job or report that they envisage no changes. A very small minority (1%) hope to stop work or retire.

45

Figure 5.8 Changes hoped for in next three to five years for employed respondents

Base: All employed FD students Notes: 1. Only asked to employees Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

Figure 5.9 explores the reasons behind these hopes for employees who hope to change jobs and employers. The most commonly cited change is in order to find better long-term career prospects (43% of respondents). Whilst we noted in Figure 4.2 that for 85% of workers their current job was related to their long-term career plans, it is clear from Figures 5.8 and 5.9 that staying long-term in their current job is not part of the long-term career plan.

Figure 5.9 Why employees want to change job and employer

Stop work/retire

Stay in my current job

Change jobs and employer (1)

Change job, but stay with my current employer (1)

No changes envisaged

10%0% 20% 30% 40%


1

21

33

34

10

So can utilise the skills learnt on course

Don’t know

To gain promotion

To get a pay increase

To find more interesting work

To find better long-term career prospects

10%0% 20% 30% 40% 50%


12

15

15

27

29

43

Base: All employees who report that they are hoping to change job and employer in the next 3-5 years


Other reasons for wanting change are cited for significant numbers of respondents. These include ‘to find more interesting

work’ (29%) and ‘to get a pay increase’ (27%). Relating to this latter reason, all respondents were asked about their income

expectations over the next three years as a result of doing their course. Just 1% of respondents expected a decrease, whilst

roughly two out of five expected their income to stay about the same, the remaining 59% reported that they expected their

income to either greatly increase (12%) or somewhat increase (46%).

Figure 5.10 shows how expectations of income growth vary by respondent characteristics. Younger respondents were the

most likely to expect an income rise; this is in line with Mincer25 who showed that workers experience more rapid earnings

growth in their twenties than when older. Those who already had a level 4 or 5 qualification were the least likely to expect an

25 Mincer, J. (1974) Schooling, Experience and Earnings. New York: Columbia University Press for National Bureau of Economic Research


46

increase in income. These respondents who were ‘re-skilling’ were more likely to have higher earnings on entry to their course reflecting their higher levels of qualification at that point in time, so presumably were less likely to expect further income growth as a result of completing their qualification.

Men were more likely to expect income growth than women and workers who had at least some of their course fees paid by their employer were less likely to expect income growth than respondents who reported getting fee support from all other sources. Employers typically support Foundation degree students with higher income,26 so these expectations may reflect that they were already high earners.

Figure 5.10 Percentage of respondents expecting income to increase in the next three years

Base: All FD students except those not working or not intending to work Source: Futuretrack Part time, 2010

All

FemaleMale


Level 4/5Level 3

Less than Level 3


BusinessEducation






59

5665

7256

4365

59

6655

6157

6157

6251

6070

5959

26 Callender et al (2010) op cit

Part-time Foundation degree students: Two years after graduation · 2019. 12. 11. · Part-time...

Documents

Transcript of Part-time Foundation degree students: Two years after graduation · 2019. 12. 11. · Part-time...