You are in :
  HEFCE

Request 00/06

HESA 1998-99 derived statistics for funding allocations and monitoring

Respond by 31 March 2000

To

Heads of HEFCE-funded higher education institutions
Heads of DFHETE-funded universities

Of interest to those responsible for

Student data, Audit, Finance

Reference

00/06

Publication date

February 2000

Enquiries to

Anthony Ryan tel 0117 931 7297
e-mail hesa_heses_stats@hefce.ac.uk

Executive summary

Purpose

  1. This document describes how we compare data returned in the Higher Education Students Early Statistics survey 1998 (HESES98) with data supplied on the 1998-99 Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) individualised student record. The technical supplement describes the methods used, and gives details of their weaknesses.
  2. We are comparing the two data sources to check data returned on HESES98, including forecast registrations and non-completions, as this information formed the basis for funding allocations in 1999-2000. We believe this exercise helps to improve the quality both of data supplied to HESA, and of responses to the HESES survey.
  3. The reconstruction of HESES98 from the HESA record will also provide the basis for calculating premiums based on the following:
    • full-time mature undergraduate students
    • students receiving some tuition-fee remittance
    • the neighbourhood types of students
    • students receiving a disability allowance.

    These premiums will be used in the funding allocations for 2000-01. Both the neighbourhood types and the tuition-fee data are provided because it has not yet been decided which will be used for one of the widening participation premiums.

  4. We are providing information on the teaching institutions of indirectly funded students (franchised-out students) to enable institutions to check that it is accurate and suitable for publication.
  5. Draft performance indicators, based on 1998-99 and earlier HESA data, will be sent to institutions in March for checking and comment. Changes made to the data as a result of this document and the draft performance indicators will be incorporated before the performance indicators are published.

    Key points

  6. Where we identify significant differences in the data, we will write to the institutions concerned and ask for a response.
  7. If the data remain unreconciled, we may audit both sets of data to arrive at agreed figures. Any amendments to data following this exercise may result in retrospective adjustments to funding.
  8. All institutions are invited to comment on the methods described in the technical supplement, and to contact us if they are concerned about the suitability for publication of the franchised-out data.

    Action required

  9. Where we require a response it should be sent to Anthony Ryan no later than 31 March 2000.

    Selection of institutions asked to respond

  10. We will ask for a response from institutions if any of the following are true:
    1. The total difference in holdback calculated using HESES98 and HESA data exceeds £500,000.
    2. The difference in holdback is more than 3 per cent of teaching grant for 1998-99.
    3. Part-time load factors vary by more than 0.1.
    4. The predicted HEFCE fundable student numbers (columns 2 and 3) are significantly different in the original and re-created HESES tables, and are an important part of the student load.
  11. Holdback was chosen as the basis of selection because:
    1. Holdback is calculated at the highest level of aggregation used in operating our funding process.
    2. It shows major changes in funding while remaining neutral to variations in other institutions' data.
  12. The difference in the predicted HEFCE fundable student numbers was added as a criterion this year because with the redevelopment of the HESA record we are better able to match HESA 1998-99 with HESES98. These differences may result from any of the following:
    • errors in the HESA data
    • particular circumstances occurring in 1998-99 only, which can be explained
    • the model used for forecasting needs refinement.

    Institutions that are asked for a response because of this criterion will be expected to explain the differences, and to assure us that they will take steps to make more accurate predictions in future.

  13. We will conduct a similar exercise next year. This comparison takes place after the data have been finalised with HESA. Changes will only be made to our copy of the HESA data if large discrepancies that can easily be corrected become apparent. If such changes are necessary we shall expect institutions to adopt procedures designed to ensure that, in future years, the final data submitted to HESA are correct.

    Responses required

  14. We will write separately to the institutions from which we require a response.
  15. In such cases and in the first instance, we would like explanations of differences in the following three areas:
    1. Columns 4 and 4a of the main student tables, 1a, 2a and 3a.
    2. The proportions of students across fee levels and fee sources, Tables 1b, 2b and 3b.
    3. Part-time load factors. These are calculated from Table 3a.
  16. Responses should contain both estimates of the number of students involved and reasons for the differences. If it proves necessary to amend the HESA data we shall require that the corrections are submitted to us in a standard format, and are signed off by the institution. This is essential in order to establish an audit trail of data changes.
  17. If differences between the data cannot be reconciled, we may audit both sets of data. If data are amended, we may make retrospective adjustments to funding.
  18. All institutions are invited to comment on the methods described in the technical supplement, and to suggest how they can be improved.
  19. Any institution that considers that the data on its indirectly funded students are unsuitable for publication should contact us by 31 March 2000.
  20. We believe this exercise helps to improve the quality both of data supplied to HESA, and of responses to the HESES survey.

    Information supplied

  21. When we received signed-off data from HESA we performed the comparison. We are now writing to institutions indicating whether a response is required, and enclosing the following information:
    1. A copy of the HESES98 return, including all amendments made during the funding process.
    2. HESES98 as re-created using data supplied to HESA, and the coding methods described in the technical supplement.
    3. The number of mature home and EC fundable, full-time undergraduates.
    4. The number of young, home and EC fundable, full-time undergraduates receiving some tuition-fee remittance.
    5. The number of home and EC, full-time, undergraduate entrants receiving a disability allowance.
    6. The numbers of young, English domiciled, home and EC fundable, full-time undergraduates in each of 160 neighbourhood types.
    7. The institutions teaching indirectly funded students and the number of such students.
    8. Summary information comparing HESES98 to HESA data.
    9. A summary of HESA records excluded from the HESES re-creation.
  22. Column 7 of Table 1a, which counts full-time full-year outgoing ERASMUS and SOCRATES students, and Table 4, Island students, have not been included as they were not used in funding and there is no intention to publish these data.
  23. All the above data can be supplied electronically on request. An individualised record is also available on request. It contains the following additional fields:
    1. A flag showing whether or not the student is counted in HESES98 and, if not, why the student was excluded.
    2. The HESES classification of the student.
    3. The classification of the student’s neighbourhood type used to calculate the geodemographic premium. This field is completed for a restricted group of students only.
  24. This information is available to all institutions, but we will give priority to institutions from which we are expecting a response. To obtain any of the above, please contact
    Anthony Ryan: tel 0117 931 7297, e-mail hesa_heses_stats@hefce.ac.uk
  25. We are conducting a similar exercise for further education colleges, using the Further Education Funding Council’s Individualised Student Record.

    Deadline for responses

  26. Responses should arrive no later than 31 March 2000 and should be sent to:
    Anthony Ryan
    Analytical Services Group
    HEFCE
    Northavon House
    Coldharbour Lane
    Bristol BS16 1QD

Technical supplement

Purpose

  1. This supplement to HEFCE 00/06 describes the method used to compare HESES and HESA data. It also gives details of known discrepancies between the data sources.
  2. This supplement is aimed at expert readers with in-depth knowledge of the data. Readers are advised to have a copy of the 1998-99 HESA coding manual and HESES98 (HEFCE 98/48) to hand when using this document.

    Fields used in comparisons

  3. Only certain fields, detailed below, were used to generate the comparison between the HESES and HESA data. The field numbers shown relate to the combined record format of the HESA record. For institutions making a module-based return, some subject and cost centre information is taken from the module portion of the return.
  4. Throughout this supplement, fields taken from the HESA return are shown in capitals using the names given below.

    Field number

    Description

    Name

    2

    HESA institution identifier

    INSTID

    3

    Campus identifier

    CAMPID

    4

    Student identifier

    HUSID

    10

    Date of birth

    BIRTHDTE

    12

    Domicile

    DOMICILE

    15

    Disability allowance

    DISALL

    19

    Year left last institution

    YRLLINST

    21

    Highest qualification on entry

    QUALENT2

    26

    Date of commencement of programme

    COMDATE

    28

    Special students

    SPCSTU

    33

    Reason for leaving institution/completing programme

    RSNLEAVE

    35

    Date left institution or completed the programme of study

    DATELEFT

    41

    General qualification aim of student

    QUALAIM

    43 - 45

    Subject(s) of qualification aim

    SBJQA

    49

    Expected length of study programme

    SPLENGTH

    50

    Units of length

    UNITLGTH

    53

    Teacher training course identifier

    TTCID

    64

    Main source of funds

    MSFUND

    65

    Fundability code

    FUNDCODE

    66

    Fee eligibility

    FEEELIG

    67

    Fee band

    FEEBAND

    68

    Major source of tuition fees

    MSTUFEE

    70

    Mode of study

    MODE

    71

    Location of study

    LOCSDY

    72

    Year of programme

    YEARPRG

    74

    Student FTE

    STULOAD

    75

    Postcode

    POSTCODE

    86

    Other institution providing teaching 1

    TINST1

    87

    Other institution providing teaching 2

    TINST2

    90

    Proportion not taught by this institution

    PCOLAB

    100,103,106,109, 112,115,118,121, 124,127,130,133, 136,139,142,145

    Cost centre 1-16

    COSTCN01-16

    101,104,107,110, 113,116,119,122, 125,128,131,134, 137,140,143,146

    Subject area of study 1-16

    SBJ01-16

    102,105,108,111, 114,117,120,123, 126,129,132,135, 138,141,144,147

    Proportion of subject 1-16

    SBJPER01-16

    c153 s138

    Type of programme year

    TYPEYR

    c154 s139

    Level applicable to Funding Council HESES

    FUNDLEV

    c155 s140

    Completion of year of programme of study

    FUNDCOMP

  5. Information was used on the method chosen to return student load on the HESA student record, because this affected the way years of programme of study for students studying on non-standard academic years were derived in the comparison. This was supplied directly to the HEFCE and for some institutions involved using the CAMPID field.
  6. In 1998 we reviewed the mapping of the Sports Science and Leisure cost centre to price groups. As a result, a list of institutions was drawn up whose provision in this cost centre met threshold criteria for the use of well equipped sports science laboratories and/or sports facilities. This list was used in the allocation of students to price groups.
  7. The TINST fields were used to calculate numbers of indirectly funded students. The POSTCODE field was used to determine the neighbourhood type of full-time and sandwich, home and EC fundable undergraduates in the HESES Column 4 population, who were young on entry and had an English postcode. The MSTUFEE field was used to determine those students who had some tuition fee remittance. The DISALL field was used to determine those students who received the student disability allowance.

    Differences between HESES and HESA data

  8. Following the revision of the 1998-99 HESA record, the HESES data can be more easily re-created. However, there remain some data returned in HESES that cannot be re-created exactly using data supplied to HESA because of differences in definition. In such cases, reasonable approximations have been made. Listed below are areas where there may be some uncertainty about the correspondence of HESA records to HESES cells. Where possible, we have indicated the likely effects of the uncertainties.
  9. In some cases, coding assumptions may have caused records to be wrongly rejected from the comparison, or wrongly assigned to a HESES cell within the comparison. If institutions believe this may have been the case, they can obtain full details of the assignment of each record, including rejected records and reasons for the rejection, from Anthony Ryan at the HEFCE. HUSID (Field 4) x INSTID(Field 2) x NUMHUS(Field c151/s136) triples and primary key (PRIKEY) will be used to identify student instances.
  10. Where the differences between the two data sources are large enough to require a response from institutions, it is highly unlikely that the differences listed below could provide a sufficient explanation.
  11. The differences are grouped as follows:
    1. Those that could affect the selection criteria, that is, affect Column 4 of the main tables.
    2. Those that do not affect Column 4 of the main tables but could lead to differences in the other columns.
    3. Areas of uncertainty in completing HESES98.

    Differences critical to selection criteria

  12. Details of the coding used for those students who are easily identified as excluded from the HESES98 student population, for example incoming exchange or FE students, are given in paragraph 30. In addition the following categories of student were excluded.

    Students who are writing-up

  13. Students who have mode of study coded as ‘writing-up’ in the July 1999 HESA return, and whose course was due to end before the start of the 1998-99 academic year, were excluded. Dormant students and those on a sabbatical were also excluded. Such students would not be part of the HESES98 population, as no part of the year of programme of study in which they were actively pursuing studies would fall within the 1998-99 academic year.

    Students with very low FTEs

  14. Students whose FTE for the year of programme of study is less than 3 per cent were excluded. For institutions that do not split FTEs across academic years this was taken as STULOAD (Field 74) < 3. For institutions that do split load across years, an approximation was made for students on non-standard academic years according to the amount of time spent studying in the year.

    No countable years of study

  15. A student who has no FTE for the year of programme of study recorded within the academic year is excluded from HESES. Where the method of reporting FTEs to HESA is not split across academic years but the student is on a non-standard year, this is straightforward, with students being excluded from HESES if:
    1. The FTE for a year of programme of study is reported in the academic year in which the student starts the year of programme of study, and the student is in their final year.
    2. The FTE for a year of programme of study is reported in the academic year in which the student finishes the year of programme of study, and the student is in their first year.
  16. Where the FTE for the year of programme of study is reported proportionally across the academic years in which it occurs, an approximation was made so that some students were counted in the re-created HESES and some excluded. The average FTEs of excluded records were added on to the FTEs of those that were included. For example, assuming a steady state where a student starts a course when another finishes, a student on a two-year course which runs from January 1999 to January 2001 would not be in the re-created HESES98. However, their FTE for January 1999 to July 1999 would be added on to that of a student whose course ran from January 1997 to January 1999. For a fuller explanation see HESES98 Annex M.
  17. Although we now have the HIN triplets (HUSID, INSTID and NUMHUS) we are still using this approximation because we need the HIN triplets to have been in operation for at least two years before we can use them for linking the HESA record between years. For more details see the 1998-99 HESA student coding manual.

    Non-completions

  18. Within HESES, a student who sits the final examination and fails is deemed to have completed. This situation cannot be identified using the HESA record, therefore all students who fail to complete for academic reasons have been excluded from the non-completion count. This means that the number of assumed countable years could be too high, as students who leave due to academic failure through the year will be recorded as completing. This will be reflected in lower figures in Column 3 ‘Non-completions’.

    Qualifications not requiring a programme of study

  19. Students whose sole qualification aim is an NVQ were not included in HESES98. Students were included if they aim to gain both a recognised HE qualification and an NVQ as the result of a programme of study. Similarly, students whose sole qualification aim is ‘qualified teacher status only (licensed teachers)’ have been excluded.

    Differences not affecting selection criteria

    Mode of study

  20. The definition of full-time given in HESES98 is more restrictive than that in the HESA coding manual. The following paragraphs give details of where it is difficult to reconcile the two definitions.
  21. HESES requires that full-time courses contain at least 24 weeks attendance at the institution within a year of programme of study. This is not part of the definition of full-time in the HESA manual. It is not always possible to identify the length of a year of programme of study as being greater than 24 weeks. The duration of a course in the HESA record covers periods of study and vacations; this is not the case with the HESES definition. For these comparisons it has been assumed that, for courses lasting less than one year, the duration of the course and the attendance time are equivalent. This could cause some students to be coded as full-time when they should have been coded as part-time.
  22. Some courses consist of intermittent blocks of full-time study which do not add up to 24 weeks per year of programme of study. We have not been able to identify these as part-time, so they might inflate the full-time numbers.
  23. HESES requires that full-time students should be on a course for which a full-time fee is chargeable. The revised definition of the mode field in the HESA return takes into account such additional conditions and it is hoped that this will result in greater agreement between the re-created and original versions of HESES98.

    Student load

  24. Student load recorded on HESES98 should relate to the years of programme of study being counted. In some cases this may not be consistent with the load returned on the HESA student record. However, it should be consistent with HESA data when summed over the programme of study. The reallocation of the FTEs of students with no countable years of study, described in paragraph 16, should ensure that differences caused by this are small. If the reporting method of returning student load to HESA is split proportionally across academic years, and the assumption of a steady state referred to in paragraph 16 is violated, then the student load will be deflated where the course is expanding, and inflated where the course is shrinking.

    New entrants

  25. Figures shown in Column 5 of the re-creation may not accurately reflect the numbers of new entrants returned on HESES. Where a year of programme is not a recognised concept of a course, that is, where YEARPRG (Field 72) has been coded as 99, students will only appear as new entrants if there is less than a year between their start of programme date, and 31 July 1999.

    Areas of uncertainty in completing HESES98

    Forecasts of countable years of programme of study and non-completions

  26. HESES98 required institutions to provide forecasts of countable years of programme of study between 2 December 1998 and 31 July 1999. Forecasts are by their nature inexact, and institutions with a high proportion of students following non-standard academic years may not be able to predict countable years of programme of study accurately.
  27. Forecasts of non-completions are also inexact. However, it is expected that these figures will, when considered as a whole, be an accurate reflection of actual non-completions.

    Coding assumptions used to generate data

  28. This section details the exact mappings used in the re-creation. It assumes detailed knowledge of both the HESA student record and the HESES return. Readers are advised to have copies of HESES98 and of the HESA student record coding manual for 1998-99 for reference when reading this section.
  29. The details listed below are similar to those in HESES98 Annex N, but some alterations have been made to improve the matching and clarity.

    Students excluded from HESES

  30. The following table and paragraphs give details of students excluded from HESES98 and the binary exclusion code used (HESEXCL).

    Reason for exclusion

    Code used

    FE students

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 71 to 78. HESEXCL=2

    Students with no qualification aim

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 97, 98, 99. HESEXCL=4

    Students whose sole qualification aim is an NVQ or QTS (licensed teacher)

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. HESEXCL=2

    Students on standard academic years who withdrew before 1 December 1998

    DATELEFT (Field 35) <1 December 1998 and RSNLEAVE (Field 33) = 4 to 11. HESEXCL=8

    Students on non-standard academic years who withdrew before the anniversary of their commencement date

    (DATELEFT (Field 35) < anniversary of commencement date) and RSNLEAVE (Field 33) = 4 to 11. HESEXCL=8

    Incoming exchange students

    SPCSTU (Field 28) = 3, 4, 5, 6, 8. HESEXCL=32

    Dormant, sabbatical or students writing-up

    MODE (Field 70) = 51,63,64 or (MODE = 43,44 and (COMDATE + course length) <1 August 1998) HESEXCL=16

    Students taught wholly outside the UK

    LOCSDY (Field 71) = 7 and FUNDCODE (Field 65) ¬= 1. HESEXCL=32768

    Students explicitly excluded from the HESES98 student population

    FUNDLEV (Field c154 s139) = 99 or FUNDCOMP (Field c155 s140) = 9. HESEXCL=16384

  31. Students whose FTE<3% are excluded (HESEXCL=64). This may be because:
    1. They have no countable years of study, and therefore an FTE of zero. This may be because:
      1. The FTEs are reported at the beginning or end of the academic year and STULOAD (Field 74) = 0.
      2. The FTEs are reported as split and they are new entrants. However their average FTE is added to that of the final year leavers so that no FTEs are lost in a steady state system (see paragraph 16).
    2. The FTEs are reported at the beginning or end of the academic year and STULOAD (Field 74) although greater than zero is less than 3%.
    3. The FTEs are reported as split and the FTE allocated to the student as a result of the HESES re-creation process, described in paragraphs 16 and 31, is less than 3%.
    4. The course length is less than a week or 21 hours.

    Mode

  32. For the purposes of this comparison it has been assumed that all students are part-time unless they are specifically classified as full-time or sandwich. Thus no student is excluded from the comparison on the basis of indeterminate mode. The assumption that all courses are part-time by default means part-time numbers can be overstated.

    Mode allocated

    Code used

    Full-time and sandwich

    Mode (Field 70) = 01or (MODE = 23, 24, 52 and FEEBAND (Field 67) ¬= 02, 42 and LOCSDY (Field 71) ¬= 4)

    or (MODE=53 and FEEBAND ¬= 02,42)

    Sandwich year-out

    MODE = 23, 24, 52 and FEEBAND = 02, 42 and LOCSDY= 4 or 8

    Part-time

    Students not meeting the criteria above

    Level

  33. The FUNDLEV (Field c154 s139) field was used as shown below:

    Undergraduate

    FUNDLEV = 10, 11

    Postgraduate taught

    FUNDLEV = 20, 21

    Postgraduate research

    FUNDLEV = 30, 31

    Eligibility for core funding and residential status

  34. The FUNDCODE (Field 65) and FEEELIG (Field 66) fields were used as shown below:

    Home and EC HEFCE fundable

    FUNDCODE (Field 65) = 1

    Home and EC independently funded

    FUNDCODE (Field 65) = 4

    Home and EC non-fundable

    FEEELIG (Field 66) = 1 or 3 and

    FUNDCODE (Field 65) = 2, 5, 7

    Island and overseas

    Any not included above

    New entrants

  35. Students on standard academic years or whose FTEs are reported to HESA at the beginning of their year of programme of study and whose YEARPRG (Field 72) = 1 are counted as new entrants. Students on non-standard years, whose FTEs are reported at the end of their year of programme of study or are split between years and whose YEARPRG = 2 are counted as new entrants.

    Non-completions

  36. Years of programme of study were classified as not completed where DATELEFT (Field 35) was between 1 December 1998 and 1 August 1999 and FUNDCOMP (Field c155 s140) = 2, ‘did not complete the current year of programme of study’.

    Allocation to price groups

  37. Price groups are defined in terms of academic cost centres. The mapping of cost centre codes to price groups is given in the table below.

    Price group

    Cost centres

    A

    01, 02, 03

    B

    04, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 , 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,39

    C

    05, 06, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33, 36, 37

    D

    27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38*, 41

    Media studies

    30

    Psychology

    07

    ITT

    Courses of initial teacher training leading to QTS (TTCID=1)

    INSET - QTS

    Courses of in-service education of teachers (TTCID=3), where the student has QTS

    *except those institutions expected to have returned their sports science and leisure studies to price group C in the HESES98 tables.

  38. If the subject area of study associated with the cost centre (SBJ01 to SBJ16) is A1: pre-clinical medicine, or A2: pre-clinical dentistry, then the price group is set to B irrespective of the cost centre. Similarly if the teacher training course indicator (TTCID) is 2: other ITT not leading to QTS, then the price group is set to C irrespective of the cost centre.
  39. Where no cost centre information was available the price groups were defined in terms of the HESA subject codes given in the table below:

    Price group

    HESA subject code

    A

    A3, A4, D1

    B

    A1, A2, B1 – B5, C1 – C7, C9, D2 – D9, F1 – F3, F5 – F7, F9,G5, H, J, Y1

    C

    B7 – B9, F4, F8, G (excluding G5), K, L5, L8, N7, N8, P2, Q5, R3, R5 – R8, T1 – T7, V6, W

    D

    B6, L1 – L4, L6, M, N1 – N6, N9, P5, P6, Q1 – Q4, Q6 – Q9, R1, R2, R4, T8,T9, V1 – V5, V7 – V9, X, Y2 – Y6

    Media studies

    P1, P3, P4

    Psychology

    C8, L7

    ITT

    Any ITT course, TTCID (Field 53) = 1

    INSET- QTS

    Any student holding QTS on an INSET course, TTCID (Field 53) = 3
  40. For institutions making a student/module return to HESA, the cost centre information in the module portion of the return was used in the allocation of price groups. For those making a combined return, the cost centre fields 100 to 147 were used.

    Long and standard courses

  41. The courses were assigned as long if FUNDLEV (Field c154 s139) = 11, 21, 31.

    Fees information

  42. The following four paragraphs are taken from the HESES98 instructions. Students were classified as ‘existing students' if they were in any of the following groups:
    1. They started before 1 August 1998. COMDATE (Field 26) < 1 August 1998.
    2. They started a first degree course having obtained an HND/HNC or Diploma of HE in 1998. QUALAIM (Field 41) = 19 - 24 and YRLLINST (Field 19) = 1998 and QUALENT2 (Field 21) = 24 or 25.
    3. They started a PGCE having obtained a first degree at a UK institution in 1998. QUALAIM (Field 41) = 12 or 13 and YRLLINST (Field 19) = 1998 and QUALENT2 (Field 21) = 11.

    All other students were treated as 'new students'.

  43. For ‘existing students’ the source of tuition fees was determined by:

    English or Welsh LEA

    MSTUFEE (Field 68) = 02

    SAAS/DENI

    MSTUFEE (Field 68) = 03, 04

    Other

    Any not included above
  44. For ‘new students’, eligibility for a means-tested award was determined using the mapping below:

    Eligibility

    Code used

    In principle eligible

    MSTUFEE (Field 68) = 02, 03, 04

     

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 19, 21, 22, 23, 61 and (BIRTHDTE (Field 10) >= 1 August 1980 or QUALENT2 (Field 21) >11 )

     

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 20 and (BIRTHDTE (Field 10) >= 1 August 1980 or ((QUALENT2 (Field 21) ¬= 03, 04, 10 and course length 2 years or less) or QUALENT2 (Field 21) >11))

     

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 12, 13 and QUALENT2 (Field 21) ¬= 03, 10

     

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 29, 41 and (BIRTHDTE (Field 10) >= 1 August 1980 or QUALENT2 (Field 21) ¬= 24, 25)

     

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 30 and TTCID (Field 53) = 2

    Not in principle eligible

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 02 - 10, 14, 24 - 27, 31, 32, 43, 62

     

    QUALAIM (Field 41) = 30 and TTCID (Field 53) ¬= 2

     

    FUNDCODE (Field 65) = 5

    Unclassified

    Any not included above

    Students who are funded by the NHS, FUNDCODE (Field 65) = 5, were coded in HESES98 as ‘not in principle eligible’ even if they met one or more of the criteria for ‘in principle eligible’. Where a student had a portion of their fees paid by an English or Welsh LEA, SAAS or DENI they were treated as ‘in principle eligible’.

  45. The fee level was determined by:

    £1,000

    FEEBAND (Field 67) = 01

    £500

    FEEBAND (Field 67) = 02

    £2,610

    FEEBAND (Field 67) = 41

    £1,305

    FEEBAND (Field 67) = 42

    Other

    FEEBAND (Field 67) = 51, 99

    Part-time assumed load

  46. This is Column 4a of Table 3a in HESES98; it is calculated from STULOAD (Field 74). Where the FTE is returned to HESA as split proportionally across the two academic years spanned by a year of programme of study, the calculation is outlined in paragraph 16. Details of the method used will be available on request. For the three other methods of reporting FTEs to HESA, the STULOAD of those students on countable years of programme of study was used.

    Additional data derived from HESA

  47. All additional data was derived for HESES Column 4 students only.

    Indirectly funded students

  48. The TINST data returned to HESA were used to create the indirectly funded student tables. Up to two teaching colleges are listed together, because if students are indirectly funded to more than two colleges only the two with the most input are returned to HESA. One table gives the numbers of indirectly funded students, while the other gives the FTEs indirectly funded (HESESFTE*XCOLAB01 where HESESFTE is the FTE calculated in the comparison programme and XCOLAB01 is derived from PCOLAB (Field 90)).

    Count of mature students

  49. Undergraduate, full-time, home and EC fundable students included in the HESES98 column 4 population were counted as mature students if a comparison of COMDATE (Field 26) and BIRTHDTE (Field 10) revealed that they were aged 25 or older on entry.

    Counts of young students in neighbourhood types

  50. We enclose a table showing the number of young, English domiciled, home and EC fundable, full-time undergraduates in each of 160 neighbourhood types. An unclassified category is included because it was not always possible to determine the neighbourhood type. Students are ‘young’ if they are under 25 on entry; this is calculated using COMDATE (Field 26) and BIRTHDTE (Field 10). For a description of the allocation of postcodes (POSTCODE Field 75) to the neighbourhood type please see ‘The influence of neighbourhood type on participation in higher education’ (HEFCE, April 1997). The level of clustering into 160 types, rather than the 40 used last year, reflects the level used in the production of the performance indicators (HEFCE 99/66).

    Count of young students receiving some tuition fee remittance

  51. Those young, home and EC fundable, full-time undergraduates with some award or financial backing for tuition fees, MSTUFEE (Field 68) ¬= 01, were counted.

    Disabled students

  52. Those home and EC, full-time undergraduate entrants who have a disability and were in receipt of the student disability allowance, DISALL (Field 15) = 4, were counted as disabled entrants. It is assumed that the proportion of disabled in this restricted group of students is the same as the proportion of disabled students within the institution overall. Entrants were used as the changes made in 1998-99 to field 15 were not applied retrospectively to existing students.