UCAS advisory and standing groups’ summary report

UCAS advisory and standing groups’ summary report

August 2015 – January 2016

This report outlines the key discussion areas covered by UCAS’ groups, from August 2015 to January 2016. During this period 14 groups met at least once.

The purpose of this report is to provide a high level summary of discussions covered by these groups, pulling together any key themes of discussion. Full minutes for all advisory and standing group meetings are available on ucas.com.

Business rules Business rules were discussed in a number of the advisory and standing groups. Topics included the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the name-blind application proposal, implications for student loans if the UK left the EU, dates and deadlines – including why the deadline for music was earlier than dance and drama in the UCAS Conservatoires scheme, and the reject by default (RBD) date for the UCAS Undergraduate scheme. Training providers being under pressure to recruit under the new teacher training allocations methodology was also raised.

Confirmation and Clearing 2015 An operational update on Confirmation and Clearing was given to all advisory and standing groups. All groups agreed it had been a success. There had been fewer embargo breaches compared to previous years, all of which seemed to be due to human or system error. There was a mixed response to precision marketing data services (PMDS). Although many providers liked the concept, a common complaint was that they received the lists too late, and did not have sufficient time to shortlist and contact applicants.

Communications Updates were provided on UCAS’ increased communications to applicants, including reminders of deadline dates and guidance on their next steps. Communications to advisers had also increased – to increase their knowledge of the different schemes. More videos had been produced to help advisers and applicants. The use of webinars to engage with providers was also discussed and promoted.

Digital Acceleration All groups were given an update on Digital Acceleration and reminded that the dates set were target dates. All groups were informed that the UCAS Postgraduate scheme would be redeveloped first, followed by the Undergraduate and Conservatoire schemes, and then UCAS Teacher Training and UCAS Progress. Subsequent progress on development was discussed, and providers were encouraged to attend development webinars and feedback on the UCAS Postgraduate beta search tool.

Security Marking: PRIVATE Page 1 of 2 Document Owner: Groups & Forums Secretariat Last updated: 19 May 2016

Data The data supplied by UCAS was discussed at a number of groups, and a significant amount of work had been done on the data collected as part of the application process. The Higher Education Data and Information Improvement Programme (HEDIIP) presented an update on the data landscape work and the development of new Higher Education Classification of Subjects (HECoS) codes.

IT The application programming interface (API) cost implications were explained to some of the advisory groups. The groups stated it would be useful to have examples of what the API would deliver and the benefits providers would receive from using it. UCAS confirmed that it was working on how to provide improved test data to providers.

Operational approach and services At the UCAS Teacher Training Advisory Group, discussions focused on referees and what they should and should not be asked to comment on, including whether an applicant was suitable to work with children. Many of the groups discussed the new Tariff. Concerns included, the lack of rounded figures when working out points, and that the AS would be devalued for learners who took it prior to 2017, but chose to delay entry to HE until the following year. Similarly, more information on the changes to GCSEs was required, especially around grade alignment. Questions were raised around a referee’s ability to comment on personal statements and the improvements to Adviser Track. UCAS was also investigating ways to help schools and colleges receive applicants’ results earlier, to allow more time for planning their support.

Security Marking: PRIVATE Page 2 of 2 Document Owner: Groups & Forums Secretariat Last updated: 19 May 2016

College HE Advisory Group

minutes

CHEAG/16/M1 College HE Advisory Group meeting held on Tuesday 23 February 2016, 11:00 – 15:00, at UCAS.

Chair: Paul Featonby Hartpury College

Present: Debbie Lister Heart of Worcestershire College Jo Ricketts Grwp NPTC Group Chris Moore Loughborough College James Marczak Myerscough College Kristine Murray Blackpool and Fylde College Debbie Toseland Cornwall College

Apologies: Kiram Rami Uxbridge College Nik Snodin New College Nottingham Rosemary Hayward Truro and Penwith College Steve Trotter Plymouth College of Art

UCAS in Adam Glaudot Technology Relationship Manager attendance: Andy Frampton Relationship Manager Carys Fisher Policy Executive Deniz Gosai Groups and Forums Administrator Fraser Nicoll Strategic Product Manager Gavin Bradley Senior Scheme Delivery Owner Giles Ursell Strategic Product Manager Janet Warne Relationship Manager Margaret Farragher Head of Policy and Qualifications Rob Edmondson Strategic Product Manager

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 1 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 15 March 2016

action A1/16/01 Welcome and apologies

Paul Featonby, Hartpury College, introduced himself as the new Chair of the Group. Each member of the Group introduced themselves and apologies were noted.

A1/16/02 Minutes and actions from the previous meeting

The minutes were approved as an accurate and correct reflection of the last meeting.

The ‘in progress’ actions on the action log were discussed:

CHEAG027 – was discussed later in the meeting

CHEAG035 – a Dates and Deadlines Working Group had been set up. This working group looked at all equal consideration deadlines, including the 24 March deadline. Further details would be shared at the Admissions Conference in March 2016. This item DG would then be discussed at the next College HE Advisory Group meeting. CHEAG053

CHEAG036 – Adam Glaudot, Technology Relationship Manager, agreed to circulate information to the Group regarding the phasing out of ODBC connections. The Group identified it would be useful to create a list of providers that used each of the main software vendors, and to share this information with other UCAS customers where appropriate. The Group discussed the implications of moving to new technology and requested that providers should be given sufficient notice to the switchover. Andy Frampton, Relationship Manager, and Adam would work together to produce sufficient communications on this matter.

CHEAG045 – it was noted that the relevant teams were aware that providers would like the City and Guilds qualifications to be broken down, similar to BTEC courses. Andy Frampton was to follow this up.

CHEAG048 – UCAS Progress training had been scheduled in Birmingham. Janet Warne, Relationship Manager, agreed to find out whether further training had been organised. It was noted that a UCAS Progress Advisory Group had since been set up. The Group would meet for the first time on Monday 29 February 2016.

CHEAG049 – the issue around whether schools were actively retaining their students and not encouraging them to apply to colleges was discussed at the Secondary Education Advisory Group meeting. The schools agreed that this could be happening but were not aware of any schools doing so. This action was closed.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 2 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 15 March 2016

action A1/16/03 Operational update

Over 600,000 applications had been processed during the 2016 cycle. The October 15 deadline file was closed successfully at the end of October 2015. During the week commencing 11 January 2016 alone, 150,000 applications were processed. There was a delay in informing providers that they could close their courses, which UCAS apologised for. UCAS Extra went live on Thursday 25 February 2016.

The Group was informed that UCAS was working with ABL to process winter exam results, and this would continue until the end of May 2016. Further information was available in the weekly bulletin.

The Operational Team was working closely with their IT colleagues to ensure the list of outages was communicated in sufficient time.

Preparation for Confirmation and Clearing had begun. Lessons learnt from previous cycles were being inputted to ensure Confirmation and Clearing ran smoothly.

The Group was informed that there was a small issue around digital copy forms for the 15 January deadline. It was noted that if a job ran past midnight then problems occurred when picking up new applications. This was noticed and rectified quickly. The colleges in the Group were not affected, and were happy with the current cycle.

It was questioned why EU and non-EU RPAs were released at different times. The reason behind this was unknown, however, it was noted that a dummy RPA was available in the test system which released them at the same time. The Operations Team agreed to investigate whether this timing is required for future cycles.

The Group requested to avoid making Application and Decision Tracker unavailable due to scheduled maintenance on Mondays, as this was when reports are often run.

It was noted that there were plans to decommission ABL listings in their current format ahead of Confirmation and Clearing, with an alternative data source available on web- link. UCAS was working with colleges and HE providers who require this data in some sort of format.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 3 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 15 March 2016

action A1/16/04 Development of UCAS’ services

4.1 Admissions portfolio update

A presentation was shown to the Group on the development of UCAS’ services. A copy DG was attached with the minutes. CHEAG054

The Group suggested that the following modules would add value to their college:  Tier 4 checking  CMA – although this had a mixed response  RPAs  Bulk upload  Plagiarism at the time of application

The Group raised concerns as to whether the additional services would cost providers extra, as they might question the value they were receiving from UCAS, especially as the capitalisation fee had recently increased.

The Group was encouraged to take part in the fortnightly webinars.

4.2 Search, information and advice

It was noted that, in the future, search could include more than just HE courses, and could also include apprenticeships, accommodation, etc. UCAS have a User Experience Team who worked with learners from colleges and other HE and FE learners to establish their wants and needs.

The Group noted that they would like the following filters:  providers’ distance from learners’ homes  the precise campus where courses were taught  overlapping provisions – for example, if a provider doesn’t run a course but the neighbouring provider does, then this could be searched  subject courses pathway – for example, courses a learner is studying could lead them onto a further course  clear terminology on each course

The Group also noted that there should be enough information on UCAS’ website for the learner to find the college, however, they should then liaise with the college directly. It was also noted that undergraduate and foundation courses would not be separated and the separate foundation degree search should be removed from the UCAS website.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 4 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 15 March 2016

action 4.3 Data reporting

UCAS’ vision for data was that UCAS would be the one-stop shop for all data. As this was a new concept, the Group was asked what data they would like to receive. Suggestions included level 3 provisions, internal progression and overall application rates. It was noted that each provider could personalise their own dashboards, and individuals within a provider could also have different accesses on each dashboard. The Group agreed that allocating data in one place was an excellent idea, however, they urged UCAS to seriously consider whether they would charge providers for this data.

A1/16/05 Consumer rights update

Carys Fisher, Policy Executive joined the meeting and talked through paper CHEAG/16/001. The key areas highlighted were:  UCAS had set up a Consumer Rights Working Group as a result of the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) advice to UK universities and colleges. The paper detailed the three key areas universities and colleges had to be compliant in.  The Consumer Rights Working Group would host a session at the Admissions Conference in March 2016.

SPA would also be holding a College HE Admissions Community of Practice event on Tuesday 15 March 2016. This was a free event. Further details could be found here - www.spa.ac.uk/aboutus/events/.

Colleges had taken seriously the advice from the CMA and were well on course for implementing the necessary changes. Some colleges were more nervous with their part-time courses, as they had to rely more on validating universities. The Group felt it would be useful to use the CMA headings in the development of the new search tool.

A1/16/06 Tariff update

The examples listed in Appendix D from the papers was discussed with the Group. It was noted that UCAS did not want providers to change their entry requirements to fit with the new Tariff, and different providers were taking a different approach for setting their entry requirements. UCAS would shortly be releasing a postcard on the new Tariff, to fit in with the one released by Ofqual. Providers were encouraged to clearly state on their websites the information that advisers needed to know.

The International Baccalaureate was a problematic qualification as points were given to individual parts of the diploma and not the full qualification. Videos, Tariff calculator and Tariff quiz was available www.ucas.com/providers/services/qualifications/new- ucas-tariff to help prepare providers. Margaret Farragher, Head of Policy and Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 15 March 2016

action Qualifications, agreed to find out whether a video aimed at BTEC students could be MF produced. CHEAG055

A1/16/07 UCAS engagement with colleges, and the development of the College HE Advisory Group

UCAS were working more closely with the college sector and other advisers (including DG parents). A thematic report had been produced and was sent with the minutes. Within CHEAG056 the past year UCAS had visited 51 colleges. The aim of the visits was to ensure all colleges were aware of the support and value UCAS provided, and to develop their relationship with UCAS.

Weekly bulletins, designed for the college sector were sent each week. The Group confirmed they liked the new bulletin format and read them each week. The actions at JW the top of the bulletins were very favourable, and the Group asked whether a workflow CHEAG057 could be added that linked in with the website.

The Group confirmed they found the College HE Advisory Group very useful, and were aware it was their responsibility to feedback discussions to the wider sector. They PF/AF requested whether a list of questions could be composed so they could send them out CHEAG058 to colleagues.

The Group was asked how the College HE Advisory Group profile could be raised. Suggestions included adding the Group’s members to the weekly bulletin, a member of the Group attending the HE and FE network in Wales in April and the Colleges Wales PF/AF Conference in May, webinars aimed at more colleges. Andy and Paul would look into CHEAG059 these suggestions.

A1/16/08 Any other business and date of the next meeting

It was agreed that the next meeting would take place in June at UCAS. A date was still DG to be confirmed. Items to be included on the next agenda included name-blind, PMDS CHEAG060 and the development of UCAS’ services.

The Group was asked whether they thought the 15 January deadline should remain as a fixed date or be changed to the third Wednesday in January (for example). It was confirmed that a fixed date was a preferred option, however, the chair requested the group review the current 18:00 timing.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 15 March 2016

Conservative Advisory Group

minutes

ConsAG/16/M1 Conservatoire Advisory Group meeting held on Tuesday 19 April 2016, 11:00 – 14:00, at the Royal College of Music.

Chair: Anthony Bowne Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music & Dance

Present: Amanda Owen-Meehan Birmingham Conservatoire Catherine Jury Royal Academy of Music Dominic Tulett Royal Central School of Speech & Drama Kevin Porter Royal College of Music Luise Moggridge Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama Suzanne Daly Royal Conservatoire of Scotland

Apologies: Alison Pickard Conservatoires UK Amanda Layne Leeds College of Music Jeffrey Sharkey Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Katharine Lewis Guildhall School of Music & Drama Linda Merrick Royal Northern College of Music

UCAS in Alice Bennett Data Scientist attendance: Deniz Gosai Groups and Forums Administrator Harry Haines Scheme Delivery Owner Janet Warne Relationship Manager Peter Derrick Head of Service Delivery

Security Marking: PUBLIC Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 23 May 2016

action

A1/16/01 Welcome and apologies

The Group was welcomed to the meeting. A special welcome was noted for Dominic Tulett who was attending from The Royal Central School of Speech & Drama, a CUK conservatoire considering using the UCAS Conservatoires scheme. The apologies were noted.

A1/16/02 Minutes and action log from previous meeting

The minutes from the previous meeting were approved as a correct reflection of the meeting.

The action log was discussed:

ConAG045 – this action was discussed during any other business.

ConAG053 – it was noted that discussions were not taking place on Yammer, although discussions via email were happening between meetings – in particular, relating to the making of conservatoire videos. This action was closed.

ConAG055 – UCAS was supporting the work SPA had conducted on CMA. However, no further information was available from UCAS. This action was closed.

ConsAG056 – Tom Gromski, Technology Relationship Manager, was unable to attend the meeting, however, he had since provided the following update: - Agresso was the Unit4 software, however, Tom was unaware of any issues around Star J. UCAS had released Star J into production later but was unaware this had affected Conservatoires. A new Unit4 admissions software would be launched to the UK market during July 2016. Unit4 would work with existing customers on migration plans, etc., however, the new product looks very good and would offer a lot of functionality for HEPs. - Test environments were still only available for the undergraduate scheme and test environments for conservatoires would most likely be delivered in line with new services development. If the Group had further questions regarding this action, they were asked to contact Tom directly at [email protected]. This action was closed.

ConsAG058 – workshops were being arranged with the Conservatoires User Group to review dates and deadlines. This action remained in progress.

ConsAG059 – a formal communication would be available shortly.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 2 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 23 May 2016

action

ConsAG062 – Hilary Boulding has confirmed she was happy for UCAS to produce audition videos, providing they were signed off by the each conservatoire and CUK first. This action remained open.

ConsAG067 – Anthony Bowne had discussed their lack of attendance at UCAS meetings with the conservatoires concerned and their commitments were expressed.

A1/16/03 Update from the Conservatoires User Group

The draft version of the Conservatoires User Group meeting minutes were circulated to the Group prior to the meeting. The key discussions were noted:

 There had been a detailed and frustrated discussion on the maintenance release that had taken place on 22 – 24 January 2016 and resulted in UCAS Track being unavailable for applicants, despite UCAS previously providing assurance this would not happen.  A calendar for future UCAS scheduled maintenance had been reviewed and the dates had been agreed as not impacting on the scheme.  The conservatoires operational calendar was also reviewed. Key dates that fell on a Saturday (31 January and 1 October) had been discussed. The Group had requested that the dates remained unchanged, although UCAS would prefer to mirror the undergraduate scheme and move away from key dates falling on a Saturday, as there would be reduced support for learners at the weekend. The Group were adamant that the 1 October deadline could not change, although would be happy to compromise on other dates. It was also reiterated that the outage planned for the 1 October would not affect conservatoires, and the only action applicants may be required to do was to refresh a page.  The Scottish index of multiple deprivation data table had not been updated for the 2016 cycle. This had meant some applicant details were incorrect and providers were receiving the wrong data.  UCAS had agreed to improve the knowledge and understanding of the JW postgraduate loans and refunds policy with their contact centre. ConAG069

The Group asked whether the outage that took place on 22 – 24 January was urgent or PD scheduled. It was confirmed that it was an urgent, scheduled outage, however, UCAS ConsAG070 would confirm which security patches were put in place.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 3 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 23 May 2016

action

A1/16/04 Update from the conference call between UCAS and Anthony Bowne and Hillary Boulding

Hilary Boulding, CUK Chair; Anthony Bowne, Conservatoire Advisory Group Chair; Andrew Hargreaves, Director of Customer Experience, Marketing and Media at UCAS; and Janet Warne, Relationship Manager at UCAS, had a conference call, which discussed four key issues.

The Group was informed that after the 22 – 24 January outage, Hilary Boulding had written a formal complaint to Mary Curnock Cook, Chief Executive, to ask whether UCAS had consciously carried out the outage at a critical time, and why it had not been communicated effectively with conservatoires. It was confirmed that UCAS had consciously carried it out during that weekend as it was essential for the security of the undergraduate scheme and, as the largest scheme it would always take priority. The lack of communication would be addressed.

It was discussed and agreed that Hilary Boulding would speak to the Conservatoire for AB Dance and Drama to try to instigate a meeting between UCAS and themselves to ConsAG071 discuss the idea of working together in the future.

The conservatoire contract was discussed, and as a result another meeting would be arranged to have an in-depth discussion.

Hilary Boulding had agreed that audition videos could be produced providing they had the input of conservatoires, and were approved by CUK before publishing. The open days videos were nearly completed.

A1/16/05 Name-blind update

An update on name-blind was given to the Group. The consultation process was re- iterated. The first stage of the process, which included an online survey was completed by five conservatoires. All the outcomes from the evidence gathering was presented to the UCAS Board and UUK in March 2016. The following recommendations were made and accepted:

1. The development of training and good-practice guidance on minimising bias in admissions. 2. Exploring the possibility of a self-regulating code of practice. 3. The publishing of additional data on offers and acceptances to help providers track and monitor them.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 4 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 23 May 2016

action

4. The development of functionality to mask applicant information at the initial decision stage of the admissions process (note, initial decision could be the decision to offer, interview, audition, etc.,) is explored further.

The next step would be for UCAS to publish a short and high level report on tackling JW unconscious bias and UCAS’ subsequent proposals. Additionally, a workshop with ConsAG072 providers would run at the end of April 2016 to discuss their internal admissions processes and tasks. UCAS would also be speaking to software vendors about functionality development.

It was confirmed that if name-blind applications did come into force, it would only apply to UK students applying to English universities. The final consultation would take place at the end of May, and any changes that would be implemented as a result of it would be completed with the new developments of UCAS’ services.

A1/16/06 End-of-cycle report presentation and discussion

The end-of-cycle (EoC) report was shown to the Group. A copy was sent with the DG minutes. The report would be published in May 2016. The new layout, including key ConsAG073 findings and additional graphs were highlighted.

Certain members of the Group asked whether musical theatre could be reported separately from music in UCAS data. It was confirmed that this would be difficult to do as the reports were generated from JACS codes, this could be reviewed when the new HECoS codes come into force. It was suggested that data resources/instrument AB numbers could be a way to work around the problem. It was agreed that this would be ConsAG074 looked into. The Group also agreed they would send Alice Bennett, Data Scientist, their All groupings of course codes. ConsAG075

An error on page 22, figure 15a was highlighted, regarding the number of dance applicants. Additionally, there was a lot of statistics on POLAR data but not SIMD data, AB which should be noted on the graphs. Alice agreed to look into these. ConsAG076

The Group also requested that any press communication regarding the EoC report JW should be approved by CUK before being published. ConsAG077

The findings from the applicant survey was shared with the Group. A copy of the DG statistics compared with the undergraduate scheme was sent with the minutes. ConsAG078

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 23 May 2016

action

A1/16/07 Update of UCAS’ development

The five phases of UCAS’ development was shared with the Group. The postgraduate search beta was available on ucas.com and was re-released every two weeks. The products would eventually be rolled across all schemes. UCAS’ aim was to release the new search tool for the conservatoires scheme in May 2017, and the new collection tool for that cycle, too. The Group was informed that although UCAS had previously said it hoped to provide a new application for the scheme for the 2018 application cycle, this would now not be delivered for that cycle. The new date UCAS was aiming for was for the 2019 application cycle. It was reiterated that UCAS was still committed to the development of the conservatoires scheme alongside the UCAS Undergraduate scheme.

The Group were not happy the developments had fallen back a year, and were PD concerned that they had an additional year of working with a system that was not fit ConsAG079 for purpose. The Group agreed to revisit the ‘not done’ work, but were particularly concerned that they would have to have another year of not receiving online references. Peter Derrick, Head of Service Delivery, noted their disappointment and agreed to assess the resource availability to implement online references on the legacy system.

A1/16/08 Any other business and date of the next meeting

The Group was informed that Anthony Bowne’s term as chair had come to an end. He AB would discuss with CUK who they would like as chair of the Advisory Group. ConsAG080

The Group agreed that both the Conservatoire Advisory Group and User Group worked well and had the right members. Anthony Bowne would speak to Barry Ife, Principal of AB Guildhall School of Music & Drama regarding their membership to the Group. ConsAG081

Janet Warne, Relationship Manager, reminded the Group to ensure their colleagues were aware of the change in the Tariff.

Catherine Jury agreed to host the next meeting at the Royal Academy of Music. A calendar invite would be sent to the Group when a date had been agreed.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 23 May 2016

Conservatoire User Group

Minutes

ConsUG/16/M1 Conservatoire User Group meeting Held on Thursday 10 March 2016, 11:00 – 14:00 at Royal Conservatoire of Scotland

Chair: Suzanne Daly Royal Conservatoire of Scotland

Present: Claire Jones Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music & Dance Dominic Tulett Royal Central School of Speech & Drama Edward Kemp-Luck Royal Academy of Music Elly Taylor Royal College of Music Iestyn Henson Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama Joanna Bush Birmingham Conservatoire Luise Moggridge Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama Nick Holland Conservatoire for Dance and Drama Nicola Peacock Royal College of Music Susan Lee-Kidd Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Stuart Sephton Royal Northern College of Music

UCAS in Barbara Kilmister Head of Admissions Delivery attendance: Deniz Gosai Groups and Forums Administrator Fraser Nicoll Strategic Product Manager Harry Haines Scheme Delivery Owner Janet Warne Relationship Manager

Security Marking: PUBLIC Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action

A1/16/01 Welcome and apologies

The chair welcomed the group to the meeting. Elly Taylor, Royal College of Music; Nick Holland, Conservatoire for Dance and Drama; and Iestyn Henson, Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama had joined the meeting on this occasion.

A1/16/02 Minutes and action log from previous meeting

The minutes were approved as an accurate account of the previous meeting.

The actions from the last meeting were updated and discussed:

ConUG064 – Help guides were now produced in Japanese. This action was closed.

ConUG065 – The admissions conference agenda had been circulated to the Group. This action was closed.

ConUG066 – An email had been sent to the Group on the UKPRN code required for HESA returns. This action was closed.

ConUG067 – The presentation on the future conservatoire scheme had been sent to the Group. This action was closed.

ConUG068 – Feedback from the Group had been received on the postgraduate beta and had been fed to the appropriate teams. This action was closed.

ConUG069 & ConUG072 – A number of conservatoires had taken part in the fortnightly webinars. This action was closed.

ConUG070 – The wireframe had not yet been designed, but further thought would take place around the fee status section. This action remained in progress.

ConUG071 – A date had not been arranged for all conservatoires to ‘play’ with adding new courses on the system. This action remained open.

ConUG073 – The Terms of Reference and minutes for the Data Group had been sent to the Group. No conservatoires had expressed an interest in joining this Group. This action was closed.

ConUG074 – The next UCAS away day had been arranged for Friday 7 October 2016. The sentence ‘the group was reminded that it was sometimes difficult to give sufficient

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 2 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action notice for systems output, however, key dates were always taken into consideration’ was reiterated. This action was closed.

ConUG075 – Alison Pickard, CUK, had signed-off the poster. The poster had been produced and circulated. This action was closed. It was noted that some videos had been produced without the final approval from the conservatoire, and it was noted that improvements in communications would be made.

ConUG076 – Nicola Peacock, Royal College of Music, had provided feedback on the schedule for planned communication. This action was closed.

ConUG077 – Placeholders for the March and October meeting had been sent to the Group. This action was closed.

A1/16/03 Discussion on operational update and maintenance schedule – to include discussion on 1 October deadline 2017 cycle

The Group was informed that a maintenance release had to take place on 22 – 24 January 2016 due to urgent updates from IT security. Unfortunately, the maintenance release fell on the same weekend as the advisory date weekend. The group asked for BK clarity on whether it was urgent or scheduled. ConUG078

UCAS apologised to all conservatoires that this release went ahead despite previous reassurances that key dates would be considered. Communications had been sent to applicants as well as follow-up emails and SMS.

The Group strongly reiterated that Yammer should not be a form of communication for urgent messages and that each conservatoire would like an email. UCAS reassured the Group that this type of outage would not happen again on a key date, however, as this was the third time UCAS had made such a reassurance and then still done so, the Group did not feel confident with the reassurance. The Group noted their grave disappointment with UCAS over this incident.

The Group questioned why UCAS felt the need to take a whole system down so frequently. It was confirmed that a new system was to be trialled where parts of the system would be taken down at different times and for shorter periods to eliminate full system outages. It was noted that it did not matter whether UCAS reinstated a system sooner than planned, if the communications had already been received from the applicants, as they would still expect the system to be down.

A planned monthly release schedule was given to the Group. A copy was sent with the minutes. It was confirmed that emails on the outages were sent to all applicants, and a message was also available on ucas.com. However, it was noted that the current Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 3 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action message on the website for applicants about the next outage was not very clear – did DG not stand out. It was agreed that this would be fed back to the website/communication ConUG079 team.

It was explained that UCAS’ Change Advisory Board discussed all outage dates, and it JW was confirmed that the outage planned for the 18 – 20 March would not affect the 25 ConUG080 March deadline. In addition, Track would only be down between 09:00 and 11:00 on Saturday 21 May 2016.

It was confirmed that there would not be any planned outages at the start of October. Harry agreed to speak with the Change and Release Team to ensure this. It was requested that the monthly release schedule should include training dates, support training, etc., and that it should also be available on the provider section of ucas.com. A HH communications plan should also be produced detailing clearly who receives the ConUG081 messages, when and how. Members of the Group asked if dates of communications to HH applicants could also be added to the website. Janet agreed to discuss with colleagues. ConUG082

There was a discussion on the 1 October deadline, as it fell on a Saturday in 2016. It JW was suggested that to enable learners to have full support from schools and advisers ConUG083 the date could be moved away from the weekend. However, the Group unanimously agreed that the deadline had to stay as the 1 October, as not only was this the date that all advisers knew, but prospectuses had already been published. It was agreed that JW UCAS would discuss resourcing the contact centre staff to support this. ConUG084

A1/16/04 2017 application cycle dates and deadlines

The Group focused their attention on the 2017 applicant cycle dates and deadlines JW calendar, which had been circulated with the agenda. It was agreed that all advisory ConUG085 dates should be removed and UCAS and conservatoires would all work towards the DBD date, which the applicants would consistently be informed of. The calendar dates were agreed for the year. It was also noted that the date ‘for applicants’ replies to offers where last decision received by 7 January’ was always the last day in January – therefore 31 January and not 30 January. JW The Group requested that at every point where ‘dance and drama’ is mentioned, ConUG086 ‘musical theatre’ should be added. It was agreed that the calendar would be updated and recirculated to the gGroup.

The Group agreed that DBDs should be run on a Saturday if that was the day they fell JW on, however, if there were any system problems, then it was agreed that UCAS should ConUG087 notify conservatoires immediately on the Monday.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 4 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action It was noted that there was an issue with the Scottish index of multiple deprivation as this data table had not been updated for the 2016 cycle, which meant some applicant details were incorrect and providers were receiving the wrong data. Janet Warne, Relationship Manager, agreed to find out when the correct data would be available and to also work with the communications team to send a message to all affected providers.

Additionally, the Group raised the concern regarding the final two bullet points that HH appeared in the help text for academic referees, as they felt these points should not be ConUG088 asked from an equality and diversity perspective. It was agreed that UCAS would look into these points, and aimed to get them removed before the start of the next cycle. HH The Group stated that they required data on the number of applicants who were ConsUG089 unsuccessful, to inform their governing bodies and funding councils that they were not discriminating. It was confirmed that *J only provided end-of-cycle data to the provider in which the applicant accepted to study at. It was agreed that UCAS would look into JW how the undergraduate scheme received this data. Furthermore, it was requested that ConUG090 CUKAS historic end-of-cycle reports should be in the same, accessible place on ucas.com as all future UCAS Conservatoire reports. JW The Group was disappointed with the lack of communication UCAS had with Student ConUG091 Finance regarding postgraduate loans and what was available to applicants. They also noted that information on ucas.com was incorrect regarding this. It was agreed that HH UCAS would look into this. It was also agreed that the Terms and Conditions that ConUG092 applicants signed up to would be sent to the Group.

A1/16/05 Development of UCAS’ services and workshop to collect requirements for conservatoire collection tool

A presentation on the development of UCAS’ services was given to the Group. A copy was sent with the minutes. The postgraduate demo beta was also shown.

The following points were noted:  venue would show campus/place where the course was delivered  currently there was no ‘edit’ button, but this would be added at a later date  the demo had not yet gone through the design framework  the collection tool would look very similar to the search tool  preview button was on hold as it was hoped that this would not be required in the future, as it should be self-explanatory  all courses would be listed in one place  a reference code would be available, however, this would be different to UCAS’ course codes. All codes were to be reviewed

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 5 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action  tuition fees would show last year’s fees. A note would be added to inform applicants that fees were subject to change

A workshop was carried out on the collection tool. The following areas were noted as highly important:  preview function  addition of specialism, undergraduate, postgraduate  ability to close courses earlier by specialism or funding category  fees – including expectation for additional fees  addition of genre  functionality around the method and location of audition (including closing audition locations if they became full earlier)  addition of second/alternative study and joint principle studies  linking to conservatoire websites  thesaurus  behind-the-scenes reference groupings.

The Group was thanked for their input and was asked to contact Fraser Nicoll – [email protected] if they had any more suggestions or feedback.

A1/16/06 Any other business and close

The Group was informed that the redirect that had been put in place from the CUKAS website to ucas.com would end in April 2016, and asked if they had any concerns about this removal. There were no concerns raised.

It was noted that UCAS’ contact centre was providing incorrect information to HH applicants regarding refunds. It was agreed that this would be fed back to the contact ConUG093 centre and UCAS would look into whether the process could be more streamlined.

There was some confusion over whether an applicant should withdraw or decline an offer after they were GU1. The Group felt that an applicant should decline as they would lose all records of the applicant if they withdrew. However, it was pointed out that the correct business rule was for a withdrawal and that the applicant could not decline a GU1. In other schemes, applicants withdrew and the record was not lost, therefore the issue was actually that the record was removed. However, this could not be changed on legacy systems. It was agreed that this would be looked into to see if a HH workaround could allow applicants to call in and decline a GU1 and the letter wording ConUG094 could be amended.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 6 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action The Group agreed that they found the workshop element of the meeting very helpful, and additional workshops would be used in the future. It was agreed that a workshop should be held around May to continue with requirements collection tool.

The next User Group meeting would be held on Thursday 20 October 2016 at the Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 7 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

Data Group

minutes

Data Group/16/M1 Data Group meeting held on Wednesday 2 March 2016, 11:00-15:00, at UCAS, Cheltenham.

Chair: Wendy Webster University of Dundee

Present: Alex Ingold The London School of Economics and Political Science Christine Giles University of Portsmouth Daniel Farrell University of St Andrews Helen Reed University of Cambridge Jo Hamilton University of Exeter Judith Davison University of Huddersfield Lisa Machin Nottingham Trent University Paul Ashby University of Birmingham Tania Smith The University of Manchester Steve Walsh Aberystwyth University

Apologies: Emma Christmas Keele University Gurjitt Nijjar University of Derby James Brown University of Glasgow Nick Bhugeloo Kingston University Stella Fowler University of Gloucestershire (representing the Higher Education Strategic Planners Association)

UCAS in Deniz Gosai Groups and Forums Administrator attendance: Claire Howson Product Owner Clare Lutwyche- User Experience Researcher Loveday Fraser Nicoll Strategic Product Manager Helen Thorne Director of External Relations Kate Bevan Product Owner Mat Evans Senior Data Steward Mike Spink Data Architect Peter Derrick Head of Service Delivery Rob Edmondson Strategic Product Manager Sam Wathen Product Owner

Security Marking: PUBLIC Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action A1/16/01 Welcome and apologies

The Group was welcomed to the meeting and apologies were noted.

A1/16/02 Minutes and action log from previous meeting

Bullet point four on page three of the minutes was amended to read ‘Option to close courses early by fee status’. The remainder minutes were approved as a correct reflection of the meeting.

It was noted that conversations had not taken place on the Data Group’s Yammer page. The Group was encouraged to use this as a form of communication between meetings.

The open actions on the log were discussed:

DG004 – membership of the Group was still to be reviewed. This action remained open.

DG043 – it was noted that providers were still experiencing issues with a lack of information about the pricing of the EXACT service. They would like to know approximately what a data supply would cost before engaging in more detail and asked if it could be clearer on ucas.com. It was agreed that Fiona Johnston, Head of Analysis Products and Services, would be invited to the next meeting to explain the pricing in more detail. This action remained open.

DG052 – it was noted that although details of upcoming webinars were added to the provider network on Yammer, the Data Group’s closed Yammer group was not receiving the updates. Deniz Gosai, Groups and Forums Administrator, agreed to speak to UCAS’ Communications Team to ensure that the Data Group Yammer page received all updates.

DG060 – the Group requested that UCAS ensured that HECoS codes held in UCAS’ systems aligned with those held in HESA systems – so comparable data could be obtained from both organisations. It was noted that the contract had been signed for the HECoS implementation project and a session on this would be held at the Admissions Conference in March. This action remained open.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 2 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action A1/16/03 Development of UCAS’ services

3.1 Admissions portfolio update

A presentation on UCAS’ admissions portfolio project was given to the Group and a DG DG062 copy was sent with the minutes. The Group was reminded of the developments UCAS was making to its products and services, and the reason for the changes. The developments were currently at the vision board stage. There were no questions from the Group on the developments.

3.2 Beta collection tool demo and prioritising next steps/features

The beta collection tool demo was shown to the Group and the additional fields explained. Some data had not yet been migrated completely, but the Group was assured that no data had been lost. The following was noted:

 Venues would be renamed to locations. Any study locations such as campus, schools, colleges, etc. could added here.  Items could be edited but not added or deleted.  The dashboard link was not on the Course Management page. It was confirmed that this would be added shortly. ALL DG063  Filters would soon be added. If the Group had any recommendations for filters they should email Claire Howson – [email protected].  Some course options could be added, with more to follow shortly.  Postgraduate taught and research courses would always come under different umbrella titles. Different levels would be required at undergraduate level, for example, full- time three years, full-time sandwich. UCAS was interested in the provider’s entry level, however the system could be flexible enough for them to decide if they wanted to input entry or exit levels.  UCAS would like to give ownership for choosing and publishing courses, level codes, etc. to providers.  A field currently labelled as 'course code' would now be an internal reference code for provider’s (field name to be confirmed, but would be something similar to 'HEP internal course reference'). This would not be visible to applicants. Providers were concerned their staff might input non-unique reference codes, so it was agreed that UCAS would do some further research in when developing this section.

It was confirmed that, currently, the qualification level was derived only from the qualification level itself. However, in future it would be from the qualification level and the country.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 3 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action The Group asked if help text would be available in the new system. If it was required, it would be provided, however but the aim was for the system to be self-explanatory. The Group confirmed that user manuals would be useful.

Reports would not be produced for providers to inform them of changes made to their courses data. However, the dashboard would flag up the date of any changes and who made them.

Providers would be liable for all their data on ucas.com. The option to delete courses would not be available unless the course had never been published. However, old courses could be moved into archive and retrieved at a later date if needed. UCAS would look at bulk uploads, bulk updates, and bulk edits, which would minimise the amount of manual changes providers needed to make.

The Group noted the current review of the Key Information Sets, and requested an integrated approach with Collect and Search.

The feedback received from the beta collection tool was shared with the Group and a DG DG064 copy was sent with the minutes. It was noted that all feedback received from providers was essential – it could be submitted to UCAS by clicking on the feedback button on the beta site. All feedback was then assigned a ticket, so it could be grouped together. This was then sent to the Development Team. Feedback was also collated from webinars and UCAS’ groups and forums.

A1/16/04 Data spreadsheet update

A central spreadsheet for data feedback had been collated and a copy was sent with DG DG065 the minutes. The terminology of some fields might change after consultation with learners.

A number of areas on the application centric view were discussed:

 Personal information – this would include five fields. The name field had to match what was on the applicant’s passport.  Contact information – it was still to be decided whether proxy (responsible person) could be included under this section.  Contextual information – would also include whether the applicant was a carer.  Education and life experience – the Group agreed that these categories should be kept separate: o education – the awards listed on the application were not consistent, therefore often creating inefficiencies on the form. It was confirmed that UCAS was reviewing the list of qualifications provided. The Group suggested that the list of qualifications available to choose from could Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 4 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action change depending on the applicant’s age and/or school, so only relevant qualifications appeared. UCAS was also investigating if the Skills Funding Agency could build a system to allow UCAS to validate Unique Learner Numbers (ULNs) on point of application. There was a discussion on whether the ULN box should be a mandatory field and if applicants should have to tick a box to confirm if they didn’t have one. It was agreed that this could become confusing for applicants and lead to inconsistency, so further research was required. o life experience – it was suggested that enhanced work experience should also be separated in this category, with the option to switch this section off. Clear guidance would need to be given to applicants so they knew what information they had to submit. A free text box at the end of the section for applicants to declare the reasons for any gaps in their timeline would be helpful  Residency and nationality – this would be discussed in detail at the Admissions Conference.  Provider-specific and course-specific questions – the Group confirmed they were happy with these questions, and the option to upload attachments should be given  Protected characteristics – it was confirmed that questions on pregnancy and maternity leave were not relevant for applicants. There had been a great deal of discussion on the gender question within UCAS. After consulting learners, it had been agreed that UCAS would ask applicants what gender they were, rather than their sex identification. HESA, however, asked for an applicant’s sex identification. Applicants had to fully understand the reason why UCAS was asking these questions, and to be assured their response did not affect their application. At the time of developing this question, UCAS would carry out further research and consultation on it.  Safeguarding information – the Information Commissioner had confirmed the way the criminal conviction question was asked could not be changed. UCAS would look at ways to increase applicants understanding of this question to minimise the number of incorrect responses.  Agents – there are plans to implement an agents’ portal to capture their details, and this would also include partnership organisations.

The Group confirmed the applicant’s title was used solely in communications to them, and not for reporting purposes. It was agreed that the current list was too long. A list of the top six titles and ‘other’ was preferred, with the option of a free text box for ‘other’.

The option to turn sections of the application on and off was initially welcomed by the Group. However, there were concerns that having information later in the process (for example, if an applicant went in to Clearing or Adjustment) could hinder or delay an application, when speed was essential. The Group confirmed that, ultimately, it would Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 5 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action like a more structured reference section so schools knew what details were required. The Group recognised the benefit to providers in tailored personal statements, but noted that schools would not like to ask their students to complete up to five different statements. The suggestion was made that the core of the personal statement could be the same for all choices, with a short choice-specific section where applicants could add a few sentences about why they were applying to a particular course at that provider (hybrid personal statement).

The Group was asked to contact Sam Wathen at [email protected] if they had any further questions or feedback on the data spreadsheet.

A1/16/05 Data reporting

A data reporting presentation was given to the Group and a copy was sent with the DG DG066 minutes. UCAS currently offered providers a variety of different reporting tools and functionality, and would like to better integrate this.

A number of different data requirements had already been established in discussions with providers. These included:

 topical data, such as who was looking at which courses, who applied to which courses, and where the applicant lived  trend data – comparing against competitors  download and exporting data

UCAS would begin by looking at data reporting for the postgraduate scheme, although the reports would cross over to all schemes. UCAS would not stop publishing current data.

The Group advised that further reporting on the following areas was desired:

 modelling reports – for example, if a provider introduced a new course it would like to see where its competitors were pricing the same/similar course at (in terms of fee, entry qualification, English language, etc.)  national data on qualifications take-up and attainment – particularly for new course developments. For example, the shift in A level take-up and achievement  gender break down for courses  annual data sets to have filters so providers could export the required data

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 6 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action It was noted that, if UCAS was going to offer postgraduate data reporting services it need to be over and above the data providers could already get from HESA. The Group commented that UCAS’ data was more up-to-date and independent.

In addition, providers had in-house systems built already to run reports. The Group agreed there needed to be a mechanism for these providers to feed their data into UCAS so that a national data set could be constructed. Providers could self-serve their needs for data, and obtain reports from UCAS as and when required.

A1/16/06 Update on the English Higher Education Green Paper

The Group was provided with paper DG/16/001 prior to the meeting. Helen Thorne, Director of External Relations, thanked the Group for taking part in the name-blind consultation. 120 responses had been received and analysed. A meeting with UUK had been scheduled for Thursday 3 March 2016, to discuss the outcome of the consultation. Discussions with UUK, Guild HE, AoC and technology vendors (to establish the capability of masking identity) needed to be carried out. A further update would be provided at the Admissions Conference in March. After this, a summary of evidence gathering would be published, and UCAS would consult with the sector again.

A1/16/07 HEDIIP update

A summary of paper DG/16/002 was given to the Group. The following points were noted:

 five regional workshops would be run for data capability  a thesaurus of terms would be produced for data language  the new subject coding system was now in stage three and would come to an end by July 2016  the Unique Learner Number (ULN) for applicants under 20 years old in the UK (excluding Scotland) was analysed. It was concluded that the number of ULNs being provided by students was increasing slowly each year. There were currently no quality checking facilities for accuracy  a large amount of work was being carried out with the Data Futures programme – more information would be available during the Data Group’s meeting in June

A1/16/08 Any other business and date for next meeting

It was stated that, as a matter of principle, UCAS should give providers the data they needed to respond to press interest, when UCAS itself published national level analysis. Recently there had been an issue when UCAS published data on ethnicity and offer- HT DG067 Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 7 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action making, but providers were informed it would be three months before they could have the associated institutional level data. Helen Thorne agreed to investigate this.

The Dates and Deadlines Working Group met in January and February. An update would be provided at the Admissions Conference in March and the Group would meet again after the Conference. The Dates and Deadlines Working Group focused on undergraduate dates, although it did have members who were experienced with the postgraduate scheme.

Wendy Webster, Chair, thanked the Group for attending. The next meeting date would be confirmed after the meeting.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 8 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

International Advisory Group

minutes

IAG/16/M1 International Advisory Group meeting held on Tuesday 16 February 2016, 11:00 – 15:00, at UCAS, Cheltenham

Chair: Nigel Healey Nottingham Trent University

Present: Adrian Dutch City University London Cathy McEachern Queen’s University Belfast Dominic Scott UKCISA Gary Rawnsley Aberystwyth University Kevin Van Cauter British Council Sioned Evans BUILA Tove Oliver HEFCW

Apologies: Brian Johnson BIS Claire Hope Edinburgh Napier University Jo Attwooll UUK John Mountford Association of Colleges Mostafa Rajaai National Union of Students Paul Smith Leeds Metropolitan University Vanessa Johnson The Glasgow School of Arts Victoria Anderson Durham University

UCAS in James Durrant International Professional Development Executive attendance: Mark Wilson International Market Manager Peter Derrick Head of Service Delivery

Security Marking: PUBLIC Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 25 April 2016

action

A1/16/01 Welcome and apologies

The Group was welcomed to the meeting and apologies were noted.

A1/16/02 Minutes and action log from previous meeting

The minutes from the previous meeting were approved.

The open actions of the action log were discussed:

IAG062 – An action plan identifying recommendations from the International Admissions Review (IAR) and responsibilities for implementation had been produced. This action was closed but further discussion took place around this issue:

An outline for a proposed quarterly update on IAR implementation was presented to the Group. The Group discussed and provided feedback to shape the proposed update mechanism. It was agreed that this would serve as a more useful resource than the originally envisaged action plan, given the fluidity of the UCAS digital-acceleration process on which much IAR implementation would be based. It would provide transparency, and a concise picture of the stage of progress on each recommendation. The update would be produced for the International Advisory Group, the Change Steering Group, internal UCAS staff (especially customer-facing teams) and for providers – via normal UCAS channels and via BUILA network. The recommendations would include:

 Updates to be given on where each of the recommendations fitted into schedule of new products and services.  Keep updates relatively high-level without going into huge amounts of detail for each. The Group felt that the proposed RAG (red, amber, green) rating was a useful way of presenting progress.  Reiterate the key points about agile methodology and its centrality to digital acceleration, emphasising the implications for ongoing consultation/testing within the sector, etc., (it was noted that this was being fed back by non-IAG members ensuring awareness was there).

It was agreed that Mark Wilson, International Market Manager, would develop quarterly IAR implementation updates, in conjunction with appropriate internal teams MW at UCAS, and update IAG on the progress. The aim was to publish the first quarterly IAG079 update in March – April 2016.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 2 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 25 April 2016

action IAG066 – It was agreed that this action could be closed and information and advice for international learners and advisors updated according to UCAS internal processes, drawing on expertise from members where necessary.

IAG070 – An update on the range of data and reports produced by UCAS was given to the Group. The EXACT data analysis service UCAS provided for HEPs seeking further analysis was explained. This action was closed.

However, the Group fed back that UK-based international-student pathways to HE was MW a particularly interesting area and important for UK HEPs. They requested some focus IAG080 on this from UCAS to provide headline data to allow sector greater insights into this area. Mark Wilson agreed to follow this up with the Analysis and Research Team. The Group also requested to receive links to the end of cycle data resources and links to further data and analysis resources. If there were any questions regarding these, the Group was asked to contact Mark – [email protected].

IAG073 – A verbal update on the snapshot report of international-applicant numbers for 2014 and 2015 cycles, applying and accepting places on undergraduate courses with year of course as year 2, 3 or above was given. These figures, when compared to other sources, such as HEFCE 2014 analysis of HEFCE numbers, suggested that UCAS currently captured approximately 15 – 20 per cent of the TNE progression students entering UK HE. It was agreed that this remained an area of interest, and UCAS would continue to explore development of services in this area within the overall development of new products and services, specifically looking at the ‘Fast Track/Progression’ module being considered within the digital-acceleration process. This action was closed.

As a result of a discussion of minutes from October 2015 meeting, and other agenda MW items from February 2016 meeting, Mark Wilson agreed to follow up with Mostafa IAG081 Rajaai, National Union of Students, regarding the NUS’ ‘Yes’ campaign related to UK’s EU membership. MW Mark also agreed to organise internal UCAS training and development events relating IAG082 to agents and private pathway providers, and provide an update to the Group. The IAG members may also be invited to contribute their expertise and insights from their own experience to support these activities.

A1/16/03 Review of UCAS’ dates and deadlines

A significant part of the meeting was devoted to the discussion of the review of UCAS’ dates and deadlines. This was a priority recommendation from the International Admissions Review (IAR). In line with majority views from the IAR, however, review of the dates and deadlines for international students was being undertaken by UCAS and

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 3 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 25 April 2016

action sector colleagues within the broader context of reviewing dates and deadlines for all applicants.

Sioned Evans, BUILA, and Peter Derrick, Head of Service Delivery, fed back some key points from previous meetings (8 January 2016 and 15 February 2016) of the Dates and Deadlines Working Group:

 Majority of discussion in the meeting was around the 15 October and 15 January deadlines.  Difficulties highlighted in finding balance between international and home, recruiting and selecting HEP needs related to the 15 January deadline.  Various options considered, including modelling three deadlines – October, November and late February.  Possibility of moving to end of October of Oxford and Cambridge deadline was also under consideration  24 March deadline was up for review, pending input from specialist art institutions.  Decline by default (DBD) and reject by default (RBD) deadlines had not been discussed due to need to fix initial application deadlines and working from there. DBD was recognised as ongoing useful. RBD was not seen as equally useful.

The Group noted that from an international perspective, the 30 June deadline was seen by many as more of an issue for international applicants, and this would need to be considered.

It was indicated that the dates and deadlines review was a work in progress, with an update to be presented at UCAS conference at the end of March 2016, and for ongoing review, and wider consultation to be undertaken after the conference by the Dates and Deadlines Working Group.

Principles and scope

There was considerable discussion around the difference between structuring process and deadlines based on business need of providers (e.g. managing application workloads) and facilitating open and accessible admissions to students from different backgrounds, including both widening participation (WP) and international cohorts. Overall, the Group felt that complexity of different processes within the overall admissions cycle could serve as a deterrent to open inclusive admissions practice, so introducing greater simplicity in the process would be helpful.

Although recognising that the Dates and Deadlines Working Group was not considering multiple start-date models, this was an increasingly important aspect for many Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 4 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 25 April 2016

action international learners’ progression into UK HE and the Group would encourage consideration.

The Group felt that, historically, the UCAS system had been designed on a home/EU student-centric ‘student number controls’ basis for admitting home students, unlike the deregulated approach for international students. The shift now to less regulation of fees for both home and international students gave UCAS and the sector the opportunity to ask more fundamental questions, such as what purpose do deadlines serve and do these deadlines make sense?

The Group agreed on the need to reflect on the international competitor destination countries and deadlines/milestones in the admissions cycles for those countries, and consider this in the setting of deadlines for enhancing the UK competitiveness.

Comments on specific dates and deadlines

Increasing number of courses with an October 15 deadline – the Group agreed that it would be helpful for HEPs to have the flexibility to include individual courses rather than offer institutions the opportunity to opt in for their portfolio as a whole. Criteria for doing so would need to be clear. Both high demand and the time needed to process applications (i.e. complexity of selection process) were seen as the critical factors in deciding whether individual courses could be moved under 15 October deadline. The impact this would have on progression from single-year programmes followed by international students would need to be considered.

The Group flagged the possibility of international students having a poor understanding of the ‘equal consideration’ deadline of January 15. Additional information and advice, simplification of terminology and increased marketing by UCAS to all international customers may help with this.

January 15 deadline required better explanation – a number of HEPs were perceived to be largely not operating a ‘gathered field’ admissions process for most courses, and it was not felt to be reflective of reality of most HEPs international recruitment practice. RBD and DBD – from discussion, the Group felt that fixed dates rather than variable ‘offer expiry’ dates would be the least complex process and offer greatest opportunity for international students to understand the process easily. Moving to a system of ‘three-month expiry’ offers with the aim of reducing complexity of RBD/DBD system might be counterproductive.

30 June main scheme closure date – there was a clear consensus that the 30 June deadline and automatic transfer of new international applicants into the Clearing process was not designed for international students. The end of July or as close to the

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 5 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 25 April 2016

action start of Clearing as an alternative to the 30 June deadline would be an improvement on the current process. MW It was agreed that Mark Wilson, International Market Manager, would write up the key IAG083 points from the IAG discussion of dates and deadlines and formally communicate the key points with the chairs of the Undergraduate Advisory Group and Dates and Deadlines Working Group, with prior agreement with Nigel Healey, Nottingham Trent University and Sioned Evans, BUILA.

A1/16/04 Updates from the Group

The Group noted the following updates:

 Possible changes to English language level requirements for Tier 4 visa purposes – current UKVI policy was to not change from existing CEFR levels for entry to different programmes of study. Although there had been some sector discussion of a possible change to defining levels required in IELTS bands, this change had not occurred.  BIS may be required to explore accreditation or registration of education agents – UKCISA and British Council were in dialogue with BIS to consider what problem this system might be seeking to resolve in order to better help shape any such development.  Tier 2 policy changes were pending, which were likely to increase the difficulty for international graduates on a Tier 4 student visa to switch to Tier 2 employment visa. The transition from Tier 4 to Tier 2 status would be subject to labour market tests and Tier 2 visa quotas.  BUILA reported back on a lobbying event in November at Portcullis House aimed at inviting MPs to discuss issues affecting international students in the UK, with follow-up events to be held regionally. The BUILA conference would be held in late July 2016.  It was noted that the amount of funding going to EU students in UK HE and not being paid back by those EU graduates has surfaced within some of the ‘No’ EU referendum campaigning.  HEFCW noted the helpfulness of briefings prepared by the Policy and Qualifications team on possible impacts of changes to EU membership.

A1/16/05 Any other business

It was confirmed that Professor Nigel Healey, Nottingham Trent University, would be resigning from NTU and taking up the position of vice-chancellor at the University of Fiji.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 6 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 25 April 2016

action Adrian Dutch, City University London, would also be taking up a new role and, while recognising provision within the Terms of Reference for members to retain membership if moving between HEPs, would provide details to Nigel Healey and Mark Wilson for consideration of whether IAG balanced of sector views (by institution type) may be better represented by inviting members from other providers.

A1/16/06 Date of the next meeting and close

The next meeting would be held on Tuesday 14 June 2016 at UCAS, Cheltenham.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 7 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 25 April 2016

Postgraduate Advisory Group

minutes PAG/16/M1 Postgraduate Advisory Group meeting held on Tuesday 1 March 2016, 11:00 – 15:00, at UCAS, Cheltenham, in the Boardroom.

Chair: Wendy Webster University of Dundee

Present: Alistair Garmendia University of Winchester Alexander Malin The University of Warwick Anne Wilson Edge Hill University Christine Giles Portsmouth University Clare Gardner The Institute of Cancer Research Cathy Gilmore London South Bank University Jeremy Rowe London South Bank University Matt Page The University of Sheffield Michelle Magee University of Westminster Nick Hull University of Southampton Thomas Kidd University of Gloucestershire

Apologies: Bryan Pilkington London School of Economics and Political Science Katie Salt University of Surrey Kerry O’Shea University of Bristol Laura Kishmore Oxford Brookes University Mark Skippen Swansea University Mohammed Mesbahi Islamic College for Advanced Studies Ruth Craige Durham University Tanya Waring Portsmouth University

UCAS in Claire Howson Product Owner attendance: Clare Lutwyche-Loveday User Experience Researcher Deniz Gosai Groups and Forums Administrator Fraser Nicoll Strategic Product Manager Giles Ursell Product Manager Kate Bevan Product Owner Mat Evans Senior Data Steward Peter Derrick Head of Service Delivery Peter Evans Relationship Manager Rob Edmondson Strategic Product Manager Sam Wathen Product Owner Stu Williams Senior Service Delivery Manager (Postgraduate) Tom Gromski Technology Relationship Manager

Security Marking: PUBLIC Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action

A1/16/01 Welcome and apologies

The Group was welcomed to the meeting. Each member introduced themselves and apologies were noted.

A1/16/02 Development of UCAS’ services

2.a & Search, information and advice, and research applications 2.b

The Group was reminded of the developments UCAS was making in terms of course search, reiterating that although the first phase was concentrating on the postgraduate sector, all of UCAS’ schemes would benefit from the changes.

The Group was encouraged to look at, and have a ‘play around’ with the postgraduate beta search tool.

It was noted that the release date for the expression of interest filter had been pushed back as this was not seen as a priority at the present time. However, the Group was assured that the launch date was still on track.

The Group was informed that UCAS now had a User Experience (UX) Team whose primary role was to engage with end users – be it learners, providers, or advisers – to find out their needs and wants. The Group was asked whether they had any suggestions for how they would like learners to find research courses compared to taught courses. Suggestions from the Group included searching by:  supervisor  projects attached to courses  scholarships  research areas (high level)  study mode (part-time/full-time)  studentship/adding code  key words on the application form

It was noted that UKPASS worked on a cycle basis, and applicants could not apply to the same course twice in the same cycle. This would need to be fixed before continuing, as postgraduate courses had two start intakes in the same cycle.

The Group was nervous about allowing learners to search by an area which then would list supervisors, as this information was difficult to keep up-to-date.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 2 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action The Group discussed the following:  Listing research teams/groups – it was agreed that a link to the provider’s website would be the best option, as the faculty director would maintain all information, although a short introduction on ucas.com could be beneficial. Consideration was also required for groups that expanded to consortium.  Entry requirements/months – it was confirmed that all months and dates needed to be considered.  Supervisors – the Group agreed that having a limited text field on ucas.com with a link to the provider’s website would be the best option, as this would ensure all information was kept up-to-date.  PhD research projects – it was confirmed that PhD research projects were funded and therefore providers had a small number of placements available. Applicants applied for a specific opportunity with these projects. Placements were usually advertised at the front end by providers and then learners were encouraged to apply. It was agreed that there should be a list of studentship (funded) placements and non-studentship (non-funded) placements on the postgraduate search tool to distinguish between the two.  Study options – postgraduate search should list all study options, including which campus the student would study at, whether the course was full-time or part-time, as well as joint locations and joint awards. The Group agreed that high level lists should be available which HEPs could use to filter down from.

Due to time restraints, it was agreed that further discussions would take place on Yammer. All PAG001

2.c. Courses and provider management

The Group was shown additional fields to that in the postgraduate beta search tool, although they were informed that these fields would be available in the beta shortly.

Further developments were still required, for example, you could only currently go back to the previous screen on the dashboard by clicking the ‘back’ button on the internet browser – this was the same when searching courses. There was currently no heading on the columns in the course search, although the columns were self-explanatory from the information. Further work on filters would also be carried out shortly. The structure adopted was flexible so that it could be adapted to different courses.

It was noted that ‘course code’ was an internal, optional reference for HEPs. UKPASS course codes would be separate. Course options was set as default, but HEPs could choose to unclick the default mode and input individual requirements. The Group appreciated this.

The following questions were raised by the Group: Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 3 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action  Could you input live module links? Currently this was a free text box, however in the future, there could be specific areas for links.  If fields were not completed, would they appear blank? Only to the provider. The field would disappear, so the learner would not be aware that information had not been inputted.  When would the delete option be available? This option would be restricted only to courses that had never been published. Courses that had been published but were no longer running would be moved into archive. This is so they could be retrieved at a later date, if required.  Could you duplicate data in archive? The concept of archive is that you could re-activate archived courses, therefore you could duplicate them.

The Group confirmed that at postgraduate level, a course suspend option was required. Due to the nature of postgraduate courses, they can be suspended for an intake or more, when they are not advertised or open for applications, but are still ‘on the books’. They are then reopened at a future date.

The notion of courses set up as ‘not for publication’ was also discussed, with the option of being open for applications or not. A good example of where the former could be used is if HEPs were in partnership with an international provider and wanted to send that provider the link to Apply to a specific course that is not published and not open for others outside the partnership to apply.

The cut-off date for allowing applicants to apply for a course after the start date differed between HEPs, however it was agreed that an optional closing date for applications would be beneficial, regardless of whether this date was before or after the course start date. The closing date may be different depending on fee status (as with UCAS already).

The beta collection tool feedback was discussed. A copy was sent with the minutes. It was noted that HEPs had to state all additional fees, including purchasing laboratory coats, field trips, etc. It was agreed that a note could be added to ucas.com about additional costs which could be linked to the provider’s website with detailed information. The Group unanimously disagreed with inputting an average fee field in, and asked whether the system could list the different fees depending on the information provided by the applicant (e.g. international applicants would see the international fees).

It was confirmed that the dashboard would state when and by whom it was last updated. Also, free text fields would have a character count and spell check.

Feedback on the filters would be sought after they were added to the beta site. UCAS was considering whether to add filters on degree grades (for example, 2.1, 2.2, etc.). Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 4 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action

The Group was happy with the changes they had been shown.

There was a discussion on bulk uploads and UCAS was looking at the best method to enable this. It was noted that HEPs wanted to see a list of all their courses in one place as soon as possible, and be able to obtain such a list by status for view and export from the new collection system via self-service whenever they want.

2.d Tailored applications

The work which was carried out by UCAS’ Data Group had been collated and was shared with the Postgraduate Advisory Group. The feedback was being analysed by Sam Wathen, Product Owner, and Mat Evans, Senior Data Steward, to ensure it still met the HESA data returns. The User Experience Team was also involved in analysing the feedback to ensure it met learners’ needs.

Further feedback on the spreadsheet would be discussed during webinars and future meetings. The Group was encouraged to take part in the webinars.

The following areas were discussed in more detail:

 Personal information – this would include fraud and verification in the personal statements. The User Experience Team would work with learners to understand what they understood the titles under this heading to represent. These titles were likely to change. The Group fed back the need for voluntary work, paid work, and education to be merged together so that applicants did not leave ‘gaps’ in their timeline. It was noted that the application form which the learner would see could be different to what HEPs saw, and so these sections could be separated for HEPs. It was also noted that HEPs had to know whether an applicant had started a previous course, and the reason for not completing it.  Residency – this had received a lot of feedback, and an item on this area would be discussed at the Admissions Conference.  Attachments – as the learner’s profile was developed, attachments could be added throughout their journey. UCAS had to understand exactly what attachments HEPs wanted. There were some questions raised around who would be able to view the attachments, for example, would a HEP who had rejected an applicant see future uploads. A summary page listing all attachments was desired by the Group. Also, the option to upload attachments after interview stage was requested.  Criminal convictions – UCAS was trying to cut down on the number of applicants who ticked the box to say they had a criminal conviction as they did Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 5 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action not understand the question. The need to update this field if an applicant did receive a conviction after application was also required.  Gender/sex field – there was a long discussion within the Group and at UCAS over this field. After a long consultation, UCAS had the options male, female, or other. The Home Office did not have the option for ‘other’ and HESA had the option ‘prefer not to say’.  Title – the Group confirmed that the applicant’s title was used for a number of reasons, including addressing letters and fraud checks. It was noted that Mx was now a title which was in the UCAS Undergraduate scheme and would be rolled over to all schemes. UCAS was debating whether to keep the title field to a maximum of six titles, or whether they should list all titles, in which case international titles would be included. Another suggestion included listing the six main titles and then having an ‘other’ box where the applicant could either choose from a longer list or add their title in a free text box.  Equality monitoring – HESA reported on pregnancy/maternity data and the Group was asked whether they would require this data. The only reason HEPs would need this data was for international students, as it could affect visas and have an impact on accommodation. It would not be used for any other reason. This data was not mandatory for HESA at present, although it was agreed that UCAS would find out whether it would become mandatory in the future. Following the meeting, it was confirmed that the protected characteristics on pregnancy and maternity was for university staff only and not students.  Tailoring information/data – it was confirmed that tailoring information would be beneficial for the following areas: ME o Courses not requiring references – asking for one or two referee PAG002 names, but not asking for actual references. o Uploading samples of creative writing (or other portfolio work). o Personal statements tailored to specific courses for specific departments. o Personalising HEPs’ questions. o Switching data on/off for specific courses. o Enhanced work experience sections for specific courses, for example, medicine, dentistry, education, or social work programmes.

It was confirmed that HEPs could not access the protected characteristics at the start of an application, as UCAS had the duty of care to protect all applicants. However, work would be carried out to ensure applicants understood that contextualised information was separate to the application form.

There was some discussion about including an agent and/or partner section, linking to proxy access to the application, as appropriate.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 6 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action 2.e Data reporting

A data reporting presentation was given to the Group. A copy was sent with the minutes. UCAS currently holds numerous different data sets and would like to bring all the data to one central place.

A number of different data requirements had already been established from speaking to providers. These included:  topical data such as who was looking at which courses, who applied to which courses, and where the applicant lived, etc.  trend data – comparing against competitors  downloading and exporting data

Non-UKPASS members approved the idea of sharing their data with the postgraduate sector, providing they were receiving a benefit in return. More detailed data such as where applicants ended up after declining an offer would be difficult to monitor, as this would require tracking individual applicants.

With the new service developments, each provider could personalise which data reports were available on their dashboards. This could then be filtered down within HEPs, so that different departments could access different reports.

Data modelling functionality was suggested to support market research for new courses, whereby an HEP could enter a number of adjustable variables (fee, entry requirements, English language, etc.) to find out where their new course would sit in comparison to existing courses in the market.

It was confirmed that UCAS did not attend postgraduate events, however attendance was being considered and would be discussed further at the next Postgraduate DG PAG003 Advisory Group meeting.

A1/16/03 UCAS Postgraduate proposition including the pricing model

UCAS has the ambition of becoming the most comprehensive view of postgraduate courses, and was therefore leaning towards allowing existing UCAS customers to upload their courses to the search tool for free. Additional services such as obtaining data or using the application management product would carry a fee. It was felt that to begin with, the fee for using the application management product would be a similar model to the capitation fee charged for undergraduate courses. The Group stated that UCAS Postgraduate would have to add extra value compared to the systems already set in place by providers, for providers to buy into the new concept, although the Group did welcome the idea of sharing data between providers.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 7 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

action Other ideas which were floated with the Group included charging providers at the time of student enrolment, although this received mixed views.

It was confirmed that the Postgraduate Advisory Group was the right audience for UCAS to discuss possible costing scenarios with, as they would then feed the ideas to their executives.

Further details on the pricing model would be available at the Admissions Conference in March 2016.

A possible go-live date for the new UCAS Postgraduate Apply system was not available at the present time, but it would not be July 2016 (previously floated) and was likely to be early 2017.

A1/16/04 Any other business and date for the next meeting

There was no other business. The date for the next meeting would be agreed with the Group outside of the meeting, and calendar invitations would be sent.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 8 of 8 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 14 April 2016

Qualifications Advisory Group

minutes

QAG/16/M1 Qualifications Advisory Group meeting held on Friday 11 March, 11:00 – 15:00, at UCAS, Cheltenham

Chair: Stewart Harper Leeds Beckett University

Present: Alison Matthews University of Oxford Andy Walls JCQ Clare McNichols CCEA Emma Bell Stratford Girls' Grammar School John Lewis SQA Kate Crabtree Qualifications Wales Liz Wyman Association of Colleges Lucy Hemsley Bournside School and Sixth Form Centre Lynsey Hopkins University of Sheffield Michael Kitcatt Worcestershire Sixth Form College Simon Perks Ofqual Stephen Wright FAB

Apologies: Annie Doyle University of Sunderland James Seymour University of Buckingham Joanna Wilkins King’s College London Peter Chetwynd King’s College London

UCAS in Ben Jordan Senior Policy Executive attendance: Carys Fisher Policy Executive Jochen Pichler Senior Policy Executive Margaret Farragher Head of Policy and Qualifications

Security Marking: PUBLIC Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action

A1/16/01 Welcome and apologies

Stewart Harper, Leeds Beckett University, welcomed members to the first meeting of the Group. He was chairing in the absence of the substantive Chair, Annie Doyle. The apologies were noted. It was explained that HESA had decided to not provide a representative. Representatives from HESPA, HMC and ASCL were still to be confirmed.

A1/16/02 Terms of reference

Jochen Pichler, Senior Policy Executive, talked the Group through the Qualifications DG Advisory Group’s terms of reference. It was reiterated that UCAS would welcome the QAG001 Group’s advice, but accountability for final decisions would lie with UCAS. As well as discussion on individual qualifications, Margaret Farragher, Head of Policy and Qualifications, noted that UCAS would welcome the Group’s strategic input into UCAS’ aim of enhancing its qualification information services.

A1/16/03 Qualifications landscape

The role and positioning of qualifications within UCAS’ Corporate Strategy was DG introduced to the Group. 2017 would be a key year for qualification reform, as QAG002 reformed A levels and GCSEs would be awarded for the first time. The Group was asked for its support in raising awareness of the GCSE and VQ reforms, as UCAS’ intelligence showed this was where knowledge gaps persisted in the sector.

UCAS’ survey of English schools focused on A level reform – the growing diversity of qualification profile and the need for providers to accommodate these was highlighted. Discussion followed on the declining 18 year old population, the growth in BTEC qualifications and challenges that this presented for selective providers who may previously have focused on applicants with A levels. It was commented that other vocational qualifications (beyond BTECs) were also available and growing in popularity.

The memorandum of understanding held by Qualifications Wales and Ofqual was confirmed by Kate Crabtree, Qualifications Wales. Simon Perks, Ofqual, explained this meant that whilst there would not be tripartite comparability, there was a commitment to ensure the awarding bodies worked together to maintain standards.

The Government’s emphasis on apprenticeships and accompanying funding was referenced, especially the increased focus on other technical qualifications, which now comprised around 10% of the adult skills budget.

A1/16/04 Introductory Tariff year – process

The new Tariff process was explained, focusing on the current cycle’s truncated DG timelines, highlighting the different fast-track and standard routes, the prioritisation QAG003 process, and the timeframe associated with the Qualifications Advisory Group’s input. UCAS would only be concerned by a change to the Guided Learning Hours or grading structure of qualifications on the new Tariff. Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 2 of 5 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action

The issue of timeframes for schools was raised by the Group, as they would need to determine their offering a year ahead of learners entering sixth form.

It was confirmed that the new Tariff was aligned with the qualification regulatory process, i.e. it was based on confirmed size and grading structure. The Tariff was primarily a metric for providers’ data returns to HESA and should not be used to inform decisions around curriculum planning – qualification specifications should be used to determine suitability.

It was noted that this would require a cultural shift amongst some learners, parents, teachers and advisers. UCAS was proactively promoting this and its communications would increase when the 2016 cycle closed. UCAS was also working with awarding organisations, to ensure references to Tariff points were not misleading, in suggesting that the Tariff confirmed suitability for all HE courses.

A1/16/05 Qualifications assigned to the new Tariff

The representatives from JCQ and FAB declared a conflict of interest in this item, and explained that they would exempt themselves from discussion on Tariff points awarded to individual qualifications. The Group accepted this, and agreed that the representatives remained for the discussion.

Paper QAG/16/007 and accompanying appendices were discussed.

The requirement for 20 providers to confirm a change to a qualification nominated through the standard process was queried, and practical concerns around this were expressed (e.g. there were only 19 provider in Scotland). It was explained this was only a guide for UCAS to ensure there was some support within the sector. The Group was reassured that common sense would be used, and the same would apply for the prioritisation process for new qualifications nominated to come on to the Tariff.

A change to points for the NCTJ Level 3 Diploma in Journalism subsequent to the dispatch of meeting papers was flagged. It was explained that UCAS was still awaiting feedback from some British Councils and international ministries of education – as a result some international qualifications will be discussed at the October 2016 meeting.

It was confirmed that the age at which a learner took a qualification would not be taken into consideration in deciding qualifications that could come on to the Tariff.

The Group questioned whether schools should refer to the Tariff at all. It was noted that UCAS would be emphasising the repositioning of the Tariff as primarily a data metric tool, but some learners would continue to receive offers referring to Tariff points, so awareness remained important.

It was suggested that the growing diversification of qualification profiles could see an increase in providers referring to Tariff points. UCAS was of aware of this but would continue to monitor provider behaviour. Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 3 of 5 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action

It was confirmed that whilst there was regular contact with DfE on DfE performance points, and had been before the new Tariff was published to ensure synergy, they were different in some qualifications, and served different purposes.

The Group raised concerns that graduate recruiters continued to use the Tariff. UCAS BJ was engaging with representative bodies to try to correct misconceptions. QAG004

It was also noted that one awarding organisation had asked for a qualification not to MF receive a Tariff point allocation, as it believed it may receive more points if it later QAG005 became part of an apprenticeship. UCAS would investigate this with JCQ or FAB, as appropriate.

Additionally, some ‘tests’ such as SATs and ACTs had been nominated for inclusion on the Tariff. UCAS would feedback to providers and schools that these did not meet the criteria, as they were not qualifications.

The Group advised that UCAS should add all listed qualifications to the Tariff for the JP May 2016 update. It recommended that UCAS adopted the new points, including the QAG006 yellow and orange ‘shaded’ qualifications, if the outstanding queries could be resolved.

A1/16/06 Feedback on new Tariff

The feedback mechanism for providers, about qualifications on the Tariff was DG explained. This process would be introduced in September 2017 once the new Tariff QAG007 had been in use for one admissions cycle. A report summarising feedback and arising actions would be produced in July 2018. A key outcome from this process would be that the Qualification Advisory Group advise on UCAS’ progress against actions.

It was confirmed that feedback responses received would centre upon re-emphasising DG the principles of the new Tariff, which underpinned its methodology. QAG008

A1/16/07 Progression pathways project

The Progression pathways project and its key findings from the accompanying report were explained.

The Group was keen to highlight that A level learners could also struggle with programmes that had high proportions of coursework and presentation elements.

Some members of the Group felt the executive summary had a slightly negative tone. UCAS colleagues felt that this could be addressed in future iterations of the report.

The slight data inaccuracy from a Scottish perspective was noted and was being addressed with the Scottish Government. It was confirmed that UCAS intended to update and reissue this report annually.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016

action A1/16/08 New Tariff development 2016/17 – UK apprenticeships

UCAS was discussing the possibility of adding apprenticeships to the new UCAS Tariff DG with the UK Government. Any proposal would require careful consideration. Given the QAG009 intention to use the Tariff as primarily a data management tool, the processing challenges, and the fact that the resulting points may be highly simplistic. Updates would be provided at future meetings.

A1/16/09 Any other business and date of the next meeting

The next meeting would take place in October – members were asked to hold Tuesday DG 4 October and Wednesday 12 October until a date could be confirmed. QAG010

Agenda items for the October meeting would include Confirmation & Clearing 2016 and MF Tariff points for outstanding international qualifications. QAG011

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 April 2016 Secondary Education Advisory

Group

minutes

SEAG/16/M1 Secondary Education Advisory Group meeting held on Tuesday 19 January 2016, 10:00 – 14:30, at UCAS, Boardroom.

Chair: Guy Nobes Marlborough College Nick Springs Felstead School

Present: Alison Woolley The Sixth Form College Farnborough Anna Rogers Tonbridge School Beth Linklater Queens Mary’s College Hilary Munday Royal Grammar School Penny Longman Careers Development Institute Jenny North Birmingham Metropolitan College Justine Hale Cheltenham Ladies’ College Lucy Hemsley Bournside School and Sixth Form College Philip Davis St Cyres School Ruth Wootton Anglo European School Sally Armstrong Bishop Wordsworth Steve McArdle Durham Johnston Comprehensive School Stuart Newton Anglo European School Mike Nicholson HELOA Wendy Heydorn Sevenoaks School

Apologies: Emma Bell Stratford Girls’ Grammar School Jane Mackay South Wilts Grammar School for Girls Mhairi Moore School Leaders Scotland Mike Griffiths ASCL

UCAS in Andy Frampton Relationship Manager attendance: Ben Jordan Senior Policy Executive Callie Hawkins Adviser Experience Manager Deniz Gosai Groups and Forums Administrator Hashmita Patel Business Customer Service Manager Jo Boyd Scheme Delivery Owner Louise Evans Head of Adviser Experience Sarah Watkins Marketing Manager

Security Marking: PUBLIC Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 01 March 2016

action A1/16/01 Welcome and apologies

The Group was welcomed to the meeting and apologies were noted.

A1/16/02 Minutes and actions from the previous meeting

The minutes were approved as a true and accurate reflection of the previous meeting.

The open actions of the action log were discussed.

SEAG001 – Louise Evans, Head of Adviser Experience, confirmed that she would be visiting four (possibly five) schools and colleges by March 2016.

SEAG060 and SEAG061 – Callie Hawkins, Adviser Experience Manager, was taking these actions forward with the relevant colleagues. These actions remained open.

SEAG063 was covered in a report sent with the agenda. It was noted that applicants trusted UCAS with their data, and if UCAS began sharing it with additional third parties it could breach their trust.

SEAG064 was covered in a report sent with the agenda. If precision marketing data services (PMDS) was to be run in the future, a development would be factored in so that schools and colleges could see which or their students enrolled through PMDS, and who remained on their course.

SEAG071 – The Group commented that a number of students obtained university places despite ‘dropping’ grades. Louise Evans agreed to speak to or visit schools to look at the differences between predicted and actual grades. There was a long discussion on offers versus actual grades. Louise agreed to email the Group on this subject. An item would be included on the next agenda.

SEAG072 – The Data Protection Act would override any waiver signed, and therefore it would not be appropriate to incorporate. Additionally, some international students might not understand what they were waiving their rights to and so it would be unjustifiable. This action was closed.

Actions SEAG037, SEAG056, SEAG058, SEAG066, SEAG067, SEAG068 and SEAG074 were covered during the meeting. These actions were closed.

A1/16/03 Adviser experience update

An update on the 15 January deadline date was given to the Group. The deadline date went smoothly with all systems running efficiently. The contact centre had noted that Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 2 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 01 March 2016

action they were down on calls during the week running up to 15 January deadline, compared to 2015, however calls increased on the final day. Application numbers mirrored 2015 numbers. All applications were processed on Saturday 16 January.

UCAS had been more pro-active, ensuring that schools and colleges were aware that UCAS was here for them if necessary. Communications to applicants were sent out, especially regarding the deadline date. It was noted that if applicants applied to UCAS independently, deadline dates for references were different to those applying through a school. Applicants had been encouraged to allow time for references to be added through press and media articles.

There was a discussion around applicants who were re-applying to universities, despite previously enrolling onto a course. Some applicants were contacting their schools for a reference, and were not asking their current HEP for a reference. It was agreed that a school could provide a reference for these students, but only up to the point that they were with them. An additional reference would also be sought by the HEP. There was a perception across the Group that dropout rates from HEPs were increasing. This could be because applicants were being offered places which required them to work to a level higher than they could manage. Transferring could also affect the funding an applicant received, if they were to complete a placement course. Louise Evans informed the Group that UCAS was considering offering more support to students transitioning after dropout in the future.

1. Adviser journey

Two additional reports were handed to the Group, in addition to report SEAG/16/001. DG Copies were sent with the minutes. SEAG072

The Level 2 adviser journey was discussed. The feedback was based on information received from all forward facing teams at UCAS. It identified that some functions were not supported. The RAG (red, amber, green and blue) coding was explained. Blue referred to functional requirements which UCAS did not offer at present. The Group was asked to read the journey in detail and to feedback to Callie Hawkins – [email protected] if they had any comments or questions.

It was explained that the top three priorities for advisers had already been fed into the All minor enhancement programme and new service backlog. The Group was asked to SEAG073 feedback to Callie if they identified any missing ‘wants’.

2. Adviser engagement with awarding bodies

There was discussion about when schools and colleges shared A level results with their All students. The Group was encouraged to complete the results processing survey - SEAG074 Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 3 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 01 March 2016

action www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/GCEResultsDay. The results from the survey would inform UCAS’ understanding of advisers’ requirements.

A1/16/04 Policy and qualifications update

An overview of the updated UCAS A level survey findings was given to the Group. The DG report was released publicly the following week. A copy of the report was sent out with SEAG075 the minutes.

One of the points raised in the survey was that the level of collaboration between schools had only increased slightly. The Group concluded that this would be different in different schools, depending on who made the decisions.

The Group noted that the results to the survey would change over time. Another survey would be carried out in 2016 and 2017.

The survey looked at the level of uptake of individual subjects at AS by school type. It was noted that higher level subjects at independent schools would be less likely to be offered as an AS. This could be different for state schools.

An additional point raised in the survey was the availability of information when making decisions about qualification reform. This was largely down to the availability of the qualification specifications. UCAS confirmed that Ofqual had been made aware of the challenges the delayed release of specifications had caused in the pre-HE sector.

Slides on the Progression Pathway project were talked through and the following video was shown to the Group www.ucas.com/ucas/16-18-choices/getting-started/what-are- my-options/what-qualifications-are-out-there-16-19-year.

It was confirmed that Level 3 apprenticeships would be reviewed by UCAS in the future.

A1/16/05 Discussion on results processing

It was confirmed that UCAS would respond to the Ofqual consultation.

The common reasons for missing results on results day included students dropping a subject, or issues with cashing in a particular unit or qualification. Other reasons included human error, such as examining boards losing papers, and students giving incorrect exam board codes. Sitting an exam at an incorrect test centre would not affect matching the results, as the match is done on name, date of birth and gender.

On results day, when a missing result was identified, the examining officer would call the exam board and then the higher education provider to inform them of the Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 4 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 01 March 2016

action situation. Some HEPs would not make a confirmed decision until they had received all the results. It was noted that UCAS was looking at ways to improve the process. Jo Boyd, Scheme Delivery Owner, agreed to look into whether missing results could be JB identified earlier. SEAG076

A1/16/06 Dates and Deadline Working Group and Clearing Working Group updates

A Dates and Deadline Working Group had been set up. The group was sector-led and its aim was to look at all the current deadlines and dates that made up the main cycle and establish whether they were still fit for purpose. The Group met for the first time on the 8 January 2016. The next meeting was scheduled for the 15 February 2016. A full update from the Group would be provided at the Admissions Conference in March 2016. An update would be provided to the next SEAG meeting.

The Clearing Working Group was a sector-led sub group of the Undergraduate Advisory Group. Its purpose was to look at how Clearing worked across the sector.

Four main recommendations had been made. The Clearing Working Group would AF report the recommendations to the Undergraduate Advisory Group during their next SEAG077 meeting in February 2016, and then to the Change Steering Group in May 2016 for further discussions about the practicalities of the potential implementation. When the DG report had been finalised a copy would be sent to the Secondary Education Advisory SEAG078 Group. The Clearing Working Group proposals were sent with the minutes.

Three recommendations would be submitted:

1. Applicants could self-release themselves into Clearing. This would be a stand- alone product. Information, advice and guidance would also need to be available throughout the whole process. This would reduce the number of applicants who had to wait for a provider to release them into Clearing. 2. Providers ‘pushing’ offers to applicants. This would formalise the existing process whereby applicants (whether placed or not), contact providers to obtain verbal offers during Clearing. Part of this proposal would see the introduction of an ‘I’m still looking’ flag, to determine the number of unplaced applicants who are actually looking for vacancies. Applicants would be able to collect offers pushed to them by HEPs, and be visible in Track. Questions were raised as to whether this could legally be done, as a contract was made between applicants and providers. This would be for the Undergraduate Advisory Group to determine. 3. Re-activation. Higher education providers could re-activate a previously declined offer in Track. This would be based on evidence that a significant proportion of applicants return to one of their original declined choices during Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 5 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 01 March 2016

action Clearing. Applicants would be able to review any reactivated offers on A level AF results day. The Group agreed that this was a good suggestion. SEAG079

A further update would be provided at the next meeting.

A1/16/07 Provider side of the application journey

Mike Nicholson, HELOA, showed the Group the application information the University of Bath received from UCAS. The University of Bath had 19 colleagues working in the Admissions department, with their experience ranging from two months to 15 years. Each application was double-checked after marking so that no individual bias and prejudice could occur.

The application information was input into an in-house CRM system so that information would be presented to staff in a user-friendly format with particular data highlighted and the option to add notes against each applicant. It was noted that on average 1,000 decisions were made per week by the admissions department.

If there was information on the previous university study note, the details would be considered before a decision was communicated to the applicant.

Guidelines were available for analysing personal statements and looking at exam results. It depended on the type of course, and the competition for the course as to how tightly the guidelines were followed. For example, applicants would need to meet all criteria for architecture; sports and social sciences could be more lenient.

Results were received from UCAS six days before results day. An open match and then a manual match would be carried out. By the Tuesday the university would know where any ‘gaps’ lay. They would envisage to get all offers on their system by Wednesday afternoon. Information would be automatically updated on the accommodation system when changes were made on the admissions system.

The Group agreed that the information Mike had provided was very useful.

A1/16/08 Any other business

The Group highlighted an issue of not remembering to set Adviser Track permissions at the time of setting up Apply for advisers in May each year, and requested a prompt to do so. In response, the Adviser Track permissions were set by the centre and could only CH be set up at the time of release, which was generally during November each year. All SEAG080 centres would be prompted to set permissions at the time of Adviser Track release. DG It was requested for higher level apprenticeships to be added to future agendas. SEAG081 Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 6 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 01 March 2016

action

A1/16/09 Date of the next meeting

The Group agreed that the proposed date of the 30 June was not suitable for the next meeting. A number of dates were later submitted to the Group and the next date was agreed as Wednesday 15 June 2016 at UCAS.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 7 of 7 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 01 March 2016

Technology Group

minutes

TG/16/M1 Technology Group meeting held on Tuesday 2 Feburary 2016, 11:00-15:00, at Nottingham Conference Centre

Chair: Andy Gillett Head of Technology Experience (standing in for Peter Service)

Present: Garry Main University of the Highlands and Islands (video- conference) Graham Rees University of Leeds Helen Savigar University of Portsmouth Laurence Dupont Prifysgol Aberstwyth University Lisa Machin Nottingham Trent University Liz Shillito Lancaster University Richard Wilcox Coventry University Rob Stanton University of Sheffield Sarah Swindell Sheffield Hallam University Susanne Peake University of Southampton Wayne Thompson University of Hull

Apologies: Ashley Sargeant University of Greenwich Fiona Sanders University of Leicester Helen MacCarthy University of Hull Joy Bate Liverpool John Moores University Tanja Paisley The University of Strathclyde Tim Chart Lancaster University Tom Richey University College London Mary Hill Sheffield Hallam University Peter Fox The University of Manchester Peter Service Newcastle University

UCAS in Adam Glaudot Technology Relationship Manager attendance: Clare Cozens Technology Relationship Manager Deniz Gosai Groups and Forums Administrator Fraser Nicoll Strategic Product Manager (video- conference) Sara Brady Analysis Manager (video-conference) Tom Gromski Technology Relationship Manager

Security Marking: PUBLIC Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 February 2016

action

A1/16/001 Welcome and apologies

Andy Gillett, Head of Technology Experience, welcomed the Group. Apologies were noted. The Group was informed that Susanne Peake, University of Southampton, was retiring and was thanked for her commitment to the Group.

Two vacancies were available on the Group. The minutes from a previous meeting confirmed that membership lay with the provider for the duration of their five years’ term – the Group’s Terms of Reference would be updated to include this. The two providers who had resigning members would be contacted to seek replacements. DG TG068

A1/16/002 Minutes and action log from previous meeting

The minutes from the previous meeting were approved as accurate.

The ongoing actions continued and action TG057 was closed as this was to be included in ABL planning.

A1/16/003 Top ten efficiencies update and next steps

During the meeting in October 2015 the Group had put together a list of their top ten efficiencies. It was noted that interview decisions, course collect auto feed/bulk update DG TG069 and un-coded qualification data were already on the list to be fed into future products. The Group, therefore, agreed these efficiencies could be removed from the list. The efficiencies which were not included in the top ten would be added to the list again, and Group members were encouraged to inform Clare Cozens if they had others to be All TG070 added – [email protected].

It was confirmed that automated Confirmation (in certain circumstances) referred to applicants who met or exceeded their predicted grades. The Group stated it would be beneficial if UCAS could flag these applicants across all subjects.

It was questioned how often schools data was updated – this would be investigated. CC TG071

The top ten efficiencies for all the advisory groups would be shared after the Change DG TG072 Steering Group meeting in May.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 2 of 5 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 February 2016

A1/16/004 Admissions 2016/17 update

A presentation on admissions delivery 2017 was given to the Group and a copy sent DG TG073 with the minutes.

It was noted that the campus code would change to three characters, as UCAS Teacher Training accrediting providers were running out of campus codes. The campus codes would be launched at the start of the next UCAS Teacher Training cycle. UCAS would clarify if the campus code would be unique to a campus/provider. CC TG074

Further details on all of the planned changes would be communicated via the relevant bulletins shortly.

UCAS had started a small consultation on increasing the *R file. Although a decision had not yet been reached as to whether any changes would be implemented, if the codes were to be changed this would not take effect for the launch of the 2017 cycle. It was noted that the code would not be increased to beyond six characters. The Group was CC TG075 asked to feedback on the four questions asked in the presentation to Clare Cozens – [email protected], by Friday 12 February 2016.

A1/16/005 Admissions Conference – review the ‘technology’ topics

The Admissions Conference was being held from 21 – 23 March at Celtic Manor. The ‘technology’ topics would be discussed on Tuesday 22 March. It had been agreed to group the technology topics into one day, to encourage a better attendance from the sector. The draft agenda was shared with the Group, who were happy with the content. The final agenda would be published on ucas.com by mid-February

Results from the satisfaction surveyed had been analysed – during 2013, 54% of providers rated their experience with UCAS as good or great. In 2014 it had increased to 58%, and in 2015 to 77%. For IT staff, the satisfaction rate had risen from 26% in 2013, to 47% in 2014, and 78% in 2015. This was the first time technical staff were as satisfied with UCAS as admissions staff.

A1/16/006 Development of UCAS’ services

6.1 Student record supplier briefing update

The sprint team and strategic product managers had begun discussions around Application Programme Interface (API) and test environments. It was apparent that dates had to be sequenced when going live with vendors. In the ‘new world’, test environments would be tested in the pre-environment.

An API working group was being established – the meeting attendees were asked to All TG076 contact Tom Gromski ([email protected]) if they would like to be part of it or if they wanted access to the API demo. All TG077

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 3 of 5 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 February 2016

6.2 UCAS’ service development update

Fraser Nicoll, Strategic Product Manager, joined the meeting via video-conferencing to give a presentation on the development of UCAS’ services (copy attached with these DG TG078 minutes).

It was confirmed that UCAS aspired to develop the services in Welsh, as well as a number of other languages.

The Group was encouraged to review the presentation and send any questions to All TG079 [email protected].

A1/16/007 Precision marketing data service (PMDS) update

The Group was informed that a PMDS workshop with providers had been scheduled for Thursday 11 February 2016. Discussions would be had on how to conceptually reshape the service to address the major points of concern from the 2015 trial.

A further update would be provided at the Undergraduate Advisory Group meeting and SB TG080 the Admissions Conference. It was agreed that an update from the workshop would be shared with the Technology Group.

A1/16/008 Data Group update

The Data Group met on 4 November 2015. Much of the agenda was similar to the Technology Group’s agenda, in terms of presentations and updates. The Group had received an update from HEDIIP and there had been an in depth discussion on name- blind applications. The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 2 March 2016. A reminder was given that minutes for all Groups were available on ucas.com.

A1/16/009 Name-blind consultation update

Presentation TG/16/002 was talked through. It was noted that the first stage of evidence gathering was due to close on Friday 5 February 2016. If name-blind applications were implemented this would form part of the ‘new world’.

SPA had written a paper on name-blind applications which could be downloaded at www.spa.ac.uk/documents/bias/SPA_name-blind.pdf.

A1/16/010 Test service update

Slides on HEP test environments were shared with the Group (copy attached with these DG TG081 minutes). The Group noted that, although they received data back within five days, it was not always valid. In addition, fields which providers took for granted, and therefore did not request, were not always sent through or correct.

New Tariffs were entered at the end of November 2015. N/A had been inputted into some fields which were no longer relevant. On these instances n/a had not mapped over and the old tariff had been inputted instead. As a result of this, the new and old

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 February 2016

Tariff could not be compared. This had since been fixed and a new table was available. AG TG082 It was agreed that the extract would be provided on the Environments information page on ucas.com.

The aligning production changes were in the test environment, and Undergraduate Apply for applicants 2016 was available in HEP1. In addition, regular system and security updates were carried out in HEP1 and HEP2. It was noted that HEP2 was very useful.

A1/16/011 Any other business and date of the next meeting

The relationship with Infosys had progressed well and those that had worked on the pilot were thanked.

Lisa Machin, Nottingham Trent University, was thanked for hosting the meeting.

The next meeting would be held at UCAS on Tuesday 14 June 2016.

Security Marking: PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 Document Owner: Groups and Forums Secretariat Last updated: 11 February 2016