Consultation Paper CP 3/96
Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme (ORSAS) Policy Review
To Heads of HEFCE, HEFCW, SHEFC, and DENI Institutions
Of interest to those responsible for Research Funding; Overseas Students
Reference CP 3/96
Publication Date August 1996
Response by 18 October 1996
Enquiries to Clair Murphy (0117 931 7453) Email c.murphy@hefce.ac.uk
Executive Summary
1. The Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme (ORSAS) was set up by the four UK funding bodies. Its main purpose is to strengthen the nation's research base by attracting the best overseas students to the UK to carry out their research.
2. The funding bodies have established a group to review the scheme.
3. This consultation paper seeks institutions' views on how effective the ORSAS has been, and the scope and shape of any future scheme.
4. Responses are requested by 18 October 1996.
Introduction
5. In 1993 the Higher Education Funding Councils for England (HEFCE), Scotland (SHEFC), Wales (HEFCW) and the funding body for Northern Ireland (DENI), in conjunction with other interested bodies, reviewed the Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme (ORSAS). Analysis of the responses to a consultation paper (CP 1/93) informed a review group established for this purpose, whose recommendations were approved by the funding bodies in July 1993. The funding bodies requested that a further review be undertaken in 1996 in order to ensure that the scheme continued to fulfil its purpose of helping to attract the best overseas students to the UK to carry out their research.
The Review Group
6. A review group has been established which includes officers of the three funding councils, and representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Standing Conference of Principals, the Department for Education and Employment and the Office of Science and Technology.
7. The group's remit is to advise on the extent to which ORSAS has achieved its objectives; to assess the effectiveness of the initiative overall; and to consider the scope and shape of any future scheme.
8. Membership and terms of reference for the group are at Annex A. A description of the operation of the current scheme is given at Annex B.
Background
9. The ORSAS was established in 1980-81 following the increase in overseas student fees. It was a response to concerns that some of the best students, who would otherwise have come to the UK to conduct their research, might not do so as a result of the new fee regime, thus damaging the nation's research base. Under the scheme, awards to successful students represent the difference between the full-cost overseas tuition fee and that charged to a home or EC postgraduate student.
10. In 1995-96 the scheme supported approximately 920 new awards. Awards are renewable annually up to a maximum of three years, although some students do not gain their awards until the second or even third year of their course. The number of renewals each year is about 1,300 making the total number of students supported by the scheme in 1995-96 some 2,220.
11. Annex B describes the process for making awards and provides other relevant information. Awards are made purely on the basis of the quality of the applicants; no account is taken of their nationality. The main purpose of the scheme is to strengthen the UK's research base, not to provide overseas aid.
Issues to be Considered
12. The review group is particularly interested to receive evidence of the extent to which outstanding students who would otherwise not have carried out their research in the UK have done so because of the scheme. Other evidence of the benefits of the scheme to the UK's research base is also sought, as is evidence of supplementary support for ORS students provided by universities themselves or other sponsors.
13. In addition the review group would welcome views on:
a. Whether the original concern which led to establishing of the scheme remains valid.
b. Whether the existing scheme meets its original purpose.
c. Whether there are alternative schemes that could achieve this purpose.
d. Whatever the answers to a - c above, whether this is the best way to spend a sum of more than £9 million from the constrained funds available to support teaching and research in the UK.
e. Whether a national scheme is needed, or whether other local arrangements might be made by institutions.
f. Whether it should be linked to Research Assessment Exercise ratings or research volume. Currently the maximum number of applications which may be submitted by each institution is based in part on the amount of research funding it receives.
g. Whether the administration of the scheme, described in Annex B, should be changed. The funding bodies plan to audit the current administration process over the summer to inform the review.
Responses
14. Responses should be returned to Clair Murphy, Institutions and Programmes Division, HEFCE, Northavon House, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QD by 18 October 1996.
Annex A
The 1996 Review of the Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme
Terms of Reference
1. The review group has the following terms of reference:
a. To advise on the extent to which the ORSAS has achieved its objective, that is, to encourage the highest quality overseas research students to attend higher education institutions in the UK and thus help safeguard the UK research base.
b. To assess the effectiveness of the initiative.
c. To consider the scope and shape of any future scheme including future funding arrangements.
d. To make recommendations to the funding bodies based on the above.
Representatives on the Review Group
Mr Bahram Bekhradnia HEFCE (Chair)
Mr Frank Gribben SHEFC
Ms Katherine Fleay DfEE
Mr Ben Newbound OST
Professor Ken Overshott SCOP
Ms Linda Tiller HEFCW
Professor David VandeLinde CVCP
Mr Don Bennett Observor (ORSAS Committee)
Ms Clair Murphy Secretary
Annex B
Operation of the Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme
1. The scheme operates in two stages: firstly the ORSAS Committee tells institutions the maximum number of students they may nominate for awards (the quota); secondly academic sub-committees of the ORSAS Committee select, from the students submitted by each institution, those who will receive the awards.
The Quota System
2. Historically the quota was based on the success of individual institutions in achieving Overseas Research Student Awards. This is calculated by what has become known as the 'Beynon formula' - see Annex C.
3. The formula was updated in 1993 following a review. The revised formula incorporated an element based on the institution's research funding allocation in the ratio of 2:1. This amendment was phased in over two years. In addition, an arrangement was re-introduced which allowed all institutions with a quota of 10 or below to submit two reserve applications.
Selection of Awardholders
4. Initially candidates submit their ORSAS application to their preferred institution. Institutions then conduct their own internal selection process before submitting supported applications, up to their quota, to the ORSAS Committee.
5. The ORSAS Committee has three academic sub-committees which select the best students for awards. Awards are made solely in accordance with the criteria of 'outstanding merit and research potential'. No other factors are taken into account such as institution, nationality, means or proposed field of study. Each application is marked on the selector's assessment of the candidate's achievement and experience, and the promise of research potential as attested by the Referees' reports.
6. The three committees are broadly divided into three subject groupings; arts and social studies; sciences and engineering; and medicine and other professions. Each candidate is assessed according to a 16 point scale, 1 being the highest. The basic criteria of achievement and research potential are marked separately and the combination of the two marks determines the final grading.
Demand for Awards
7. Demand for awards has increased: in 1995-96 it is estimated that 4,500 applications were received by institutions compared to 4,300 in 1993. Applications from women have grown from 28 per cent of the total in 1990 to 34 per cent.
8. Applications in 1995-96 came from 95 different countries. Those with 50 or more applicants were Australia, Canada, China, India, Singapore and the USA. This is largely similar to the profile in 1992, although applicants from Hong Kong have dropped quite significantly since then.
9. Students applying from overseas make up about 40 per cent of the total number of applicants. This proportion has remained fairly constant since the scheme began. Thus it can be assumed that a majority of students applying for awards are already undertaking courses in the UK.
Quality of Applicants
10. On the evidence of the 1995 competition, the quality of applicants continued to rise. From a total of 1520 applicants submitted to the ORSAS Committee by institutions, 360 fell below the qualifying threshold for awards. The overall quality of applicants can be measured by the fact that 321 (89.2 per cent) of those who were unsuccessful nevertheless achieved a standard which would (notionally) have qualified them for an award 10 years ago, when the cut-off point was grade 10. In 1994 the comparable proportion was 87.4 per cent and in 1993 it was 86.5 per cent.
Distribution of Awards
11. The table at Annex D shows the awards offered and taken up, analysed by institution.
Completion of Degrees
12. The ORSAS Committee agreed nine years ago to set up a survey of the success of students with ORS awards in their higher degree courses. The results can be compared with published statistics on submission rates of PhD theses by students who receive Research Council postgraduate awards. More recently the figures have been included in reports from the Office of Science and Technology. The table below gives the results of the 1995 survey and 1994 results comparison.
Table 1
Survey of 1990 ORSAS Awardholders
| 1995 Survey | 1994 Survey | ||
| thesis submitted and assessed | 581 | 67.0% | 68.0% |
| successful candidates | 579 | 66.8% | 67.4% |
| unsuccessful candidates | 2 | 0.2% | 0.6% |
| thesis submitted but not yet examined | 48 | 6.0% | 5.0% |
| thesis not yet submitted | 180 | 21.0% | 20.0% |
| withdrawal before completion of course | 54 | 6.0% | 7.0% |
13. An analysis of all ORSAS awardholders who started their courses in 1990 shows that 73 per cent had submitted their theses within a period of about four years. The latest comparable data in a 1994 report from the Office of Science and Technology is for students holding awards from the four largest research Councils who had started their courses in 1989. These data are given below in Table 2.
Table 2
Survey of 1989 Research Council Awardholders
Students starting in 1989
| Research Council | Percentage of theses completed within four years |
| ESRC | 73% |
| MRC | 58% |
| SERC | 69% |
| NERC | 72% |
Annex C
Calculation of Quotas for Applications in the 1995-96 Competition
1. As a result of the 1993 review of the ORS scheme, the funding bodies agreed that the quotas governing the number of applications submitted by institutions should in future be determined by a model combining the Beynon formula and the research funding allocations. It was also agreed that, as from 1995-96, these two elements should be combined in the ratio of 2:1 respectively.
a. The 'Beynon formula' adopted in 1986, was based on the number of award offers achieved by institutions in proportion to their quotas, averaged over the preceding three-year period. When this formula was introduced the scheme was confined to the 'old' universities. The overall ratio of offers to quotas was generally 3:4. By applying the formula, institutions consistently achieving a success rate better than the national average of 75 per cent would normally receive higher quotas, and those achieving less than 75 per cent would receive lower quotas. The effect was to reward institutions for their success in selecting the highest quality applicants for the competition.
b. The 'research funding allocation' element of the model is based by calculating each institution's research funding allocation as a percentage of the total for the UK. Individual quotas are then calculated on the same percentage basis.
2. The quota model provides for a minimum quota of two for institutions where the calculation produces a figure of one or zero. The model also incorporates the following features, designed to protect and encourage institutions which are allocated a small quota (defined as 10 or below):
a. All such institutions are allowed to submit up to two reserve applications in addition to their quota. These are not identified as reserves and are considered in the same way as the quota applications.
b. Any such institution which, in the previous competition, achieved at least the same number of offers as its quota (whether including reserve applications or not) will receive an additional quota of one as a bonus.
Annex D
Distribution of Award Offers and Take-up by Institution 1995/96
| Academic Institution | Award Offers | Award Take-up* |
| University of Aberdeen | 7 | 6 |
| University of Abertay Dundee | 1 | 1 |
| University of Wales, Aberystwyth | 4 | 1 |
| University Col of North Wales, Bangor | 3 | 4u |
| University of Bath | 5 | 4 |
| Queens University of Belfast | 9 | 4 |
| University of Birmingham | 32 | 26 |
| Bournemouth University | 1 | 1 |
| University of Bradford | 9 | 8 |
| University of Brighton | 1 | 1 |
| University of Bristol | 15 | 10 |
| Brunel University | 2 | 2 |
| Buckinghamshire College of HE | 1 | 1 |
| University of Cambridge | 226 | 189 |
| University of Wales Col of Cardiff | 8 | 5 |
| University of Wales Inst, Cardiff | 1 | 0 |
| University of Central Lancashire | 2 | 2 |
| City University | 4 | 2 |
| Coventry University | 1 | 0 |
| Cranfield University | 4 | 4 |
| De Montfort University | 4 | 0 |
| University of Derby | 1 | 1 |
| University of Dundee | 10 | 7 |
| University of Durham | 10 | 11u |
| University of East Anglia | 8 | 4 |
| University of East London | 1 | 0 |
| University of Edinburgh | 42 | 28 |
| University of Essex | 9 | 7 |
| University of Exeter | 7 | 6 |
| University of Glasgow | 22 | 16 |
| Glasgow School of Art | 1 | 1 |
| University of Hertfordshire | 2 | 2 |
| Heriot Watt University | 3 | 3 |
| University of Hull | 7 | 6 |
| Keele University | 3 | 3 |
| University of Kent at Canterbury | 4 | 1 |
| Kent Institute of Art and Design | 1 | 1 |
| King Alfred's College of HE | 1 | 0 |
| Kingston University | 2 | 2 |
| University of Wales, Lampeter | 1 | 0 |
| Lancaster University | 8 | 6 |
| University of Leeds | 44 | 31 |
| Leeds Metropolitan University | 1 | 0 |
| University of Leicester | 4 | 3 |
| University of Liverpool | 13 | 9 |
| Liverpool John Moores University | 1 | 0 |
| London Business School | 2 | 1 |
| London School of Economics | 18 | 16 |
| Loughborough University | 10 | 7 |
| University of Manchester | 34 | 24 |
| UMIST | 31 | 26 |
| Manchester Metropolitan University | 1 | 0 |
| Middlesex University | 1 | 1 |
| Napier University | 1 | 1 |
| University of Newcastle upon Tyne | 16 | 15 |
| University of Nottingham | 14 | 14 |
| The Open University | 2 | 2 |
| University of Oxford | 158 | 127 |
| University of Paisley | 3 | 3 |
| University of Portsmouth | 1 | 0 |
| University of Reading | 12 | 7 |
| Royal Veterinary College | 1 | 0 |
| Roehampton Institute | 1 | 1 |
| Royal College of Art | 3 | 3 |
| University of St Andrews | 10 | 9 |
| University of Salford | 6 | 3 |
| University of Sheffield | 30 | 21 |
| University of Southampton | 11 | 9 |
| Staffordshire University | 2 | 0 |
| University of Stirling | 3 | 3 |
| University of Strathclyde | 27 | 18 |
| University of Sunderland | 2 | 2 |
| University of Surrey | 12 | 12 |
| University of Sussex | 13 | 12 |
| University College of Wales, Swansea | 10 | 9 |
| University of Teesside | 1 | 1 |
| University of Ulster | 2 | 2 |
| University of Wales Col of Medicine | 1 | 1 |
| University of Warwick | 13 | 9 |
| University of Westminster | 1 | 1 |
| University of Wolverhampton | 1 | 0 |
| University of York | 7 | 7 |
| London Colleges | ||
| Birkbeck College | 6 | 6 |
| Goldsmiths' College | 3 | 2 |
| Imperial College | 46 | 38 |
| Institute of Education | 2 | 2 |
| King's College | 17 | 13 |
| Queen Mary and Westfield College | 7 | 8 u |
| Royal Holloway | 5 | 4 |
| SOAS | 9 | 6 |
| The School of Pharmacy | 4 | 4 |
| University College London | 29 | 26 |
| Wye College | 1 | 0 |
| London Institutes | ||
| Courtauld Institute of Art | 3 | 3 |
| Institute of Latin American Studies | 1 | 1 |
| School of Slavonic & Eastern European Studies | 1 | 0 |
| Medical Schools | ||
| Charing Cross & Westminster | 1 | 1 |
| London Hospital Medical College | 4 | 0 |
| Royal Free Hospital Schl of Medicine | 1 | 1 |
| St Barts | 1 | 0 |
| UMDS | 2 | 2 |
| BPMF | 4 | 2 |
| London School of Hygiene | 4 | 1 |
| RPMS 2 2 | ||
| Total 1,160 908 |
* as at 17 June 1996
u Includes one award taken up by transfer (not shown elsewhere in this table)
Only institutions submitting applications and receiving awards are included in the above list
Annex E
Distribution by Broad Subject Area of Applications, Awards and Take-up 1995-96
| Total applications to the ORSAS Committee | Successful applicants | take-up of awards* | |
| Arts & Education | 273 | 208 | 172 |
| Social Studies, Law & Architecture | 292 | 219 | 171 |
| Sciences | 428 | 331 | 249 |
| Engineering & Technology | 377 | 289 | 224 |
| Medicine, Dentistry & Health | 121 | 94 | 80 |
| Agriculture, Forestry & Vet Science | 29 | 19 | 12 |
| Totals | 1,520 | 1,160 | 908 |
* as at 17 June 1996 (it is expected that the final total for 1995-96 will be approximately 920)