EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP SEVENTH REPORT – STUDENT DATA
1. Introduction ...... 2
2. Undergraduate entrants - Intakes...... 7 2.1 Gender ...... 7 2.2 Disability...... 7 2.3 Ethnicity...... 7 2.4 Age on entry...... 8 2.5 Previous Institution type ...... 9
3. Postgraduate Taught – Intakes...... 10 3.1 Gender ...... 10 3.2 Disability...... 10 3.3 Ethnicity...... 10 3.4 Age on entry...... 11
4. Postgraduate Research entrants - Intakes ...... 12 4.1 Gender ...... 12 4.2 Ethnicity...... 12 4.3 Age on entry...... 13 4.4 Disability...... 13
5. Undergraduate entrants - Outputs ...... 14 5.1 Gender ...... 14 5.2 Ethnicity...... 16 5.3 Disability...... 16 5.4 Age on entry...... 17 5.5 Previous Institution...... 17
6. Postgraduate Taught Outcomes...... 18 6.1 Gender ...... 18 6.2 Disability...... 19 6.3 Ethnic Minority...... 19 6.4 Age on entry...... 20
7. Postgraduate Research Outcomes ...... 21 7.1 Gender ...... 21 7.2 Ethnicity...... 21 7.3 Age on entry...... 21
8. Student comparison data...... 23 8.1 Gender ...... 23 8.2 Disability...... 24 8.3 Ethnicity...... 25
9. Spotlight on ethnicity ...... 27 9.1 Proportion of Ethnic Minority Students: Comparisons with other institutions .. 27 9.2 Ethnic Minority Students: Applications and Offers ...... 28 9.3 Ethnic Minority Students: Offers and Acceptances ...... 29 9.4 Comparisons with other institutions ...... 30
1 1. Introduction
1.1 EOTAG The seventh EOTAG report provide analyses of student and staff data by the key equality dimensions of gender, age, disability and ethnicity. The report supports the monitoring of equality and diversity within the University of Edinburgh. This year, the report includes some comparative analyses between Edinburgh and other Universities; this is more extensive within the student section. Within the student report there is also a spotlight on ethnicity; this includes both comparative analyses and a focussed look at offers and acceptances within The University of Edinburgh.
This report forms the Staff section of the Equal Opportunities Technical Advisory Group (EOTAG) which was set up by the Staff Committee in 1999 to identify the principal types of equal opportunities data which should be collected for staff and students.
This is the seventh report from EOTAG and reports on student data relating to entrants 1998/99 to 2007/08, data taken in July 2008. EOTAG is chaired by Professor Sarah Cunningham-Burley and is composed of senior staff with expertise in the area of analysis and management of this type of data with support from the University’s support services. The current members of the EOTAG group are:
Mr Ian Bettison Mr Niall Bradley Professor Sarah Cunningham-Burley Ms Eilidh Fraser Naomi Hunter (EUSA) Professor Brian Main Ms Karen Osterburg Ms Frances Provan Mr Andrew Quickfall Professor David Raffe Dr Pamela Warner
2 1.2 Notes and definitions
1. Source Data: student data is presented for intake years 1998/99 to 2007/08. The figures are correct as input to the University of Edinburgh Database of Admissions, Curricula and Students (DACS).
2. Intake and Outcome Population Definitions: intake figures are based on undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research postgraduate populations, as defined in the left hand column of the table below. Outcome figures are summarised for full-time entry to the following core degree types: Honours degrees (including Enhanced Honours), MBChB (Medicine), BVM (Veterinary Medicine), Taught (1 year) Masters and Research Doctorates. The population definitions are provided in the right hand column of the table below. College figures represent aggregated School figures (for “School owning the programme of study”), not the DACS field “College to which student admitted”.
Undergraduate Intake Undergraduate Outcomes Includes the following academic Each of the three groupings on entry: undergraduate outcome - First Degree populations is based on the - Enhanced First Degree intake population and further - First Degree with QTS filtered. - First Degree with eligibility to practice Full Time Honours: only those from the undergraduate Excludes the following qualification types intake population who on entry: (usually labelled entered with the intention of "Undergraduate Taught" in DACS): pursuing a full-time Honours - Entry to pre-first degree programmes or Enhanced Honours such as Access; degree. - Entry to undergraduate certificate and Full Time MBChB: only those diploma courses; from the undergraduate - Post-first degree (but not strictly intake population who postgraduate) programmes required in entered with the intention of addition to the four year honours pursuing the full-time MBChB degree for professional qualifications in (note, however, that all architecture and theology: entrants in this population DipArch/MArch/BAR; Licentiate in were full-time) Theology; Full Time BVM: only those - Postgraduate teaching quals: PGCE, PGCI; from the undergraduate intake population who - All visiting or otherwise non- entered with the intention of graduating; pursuing the full-time BVM - Intercalating registrations, given that (note, however, that all the student in question has already entrants in this population been counted as an entrant for the were full-time) intake year of their entry to the MBChB or BVM.
3 Taught Postgraduate Intake Taught Postgraduate Includes the following academic Outcomes groupings on entry: Full-Time Taught Masters (1 - Taught Masters (1 year) year): outcomes are - Taught Masters (2 year) summarised only for those - Taught Doctorate (3 year) from the intake population who entered with the - Taught Supervised Postgraduate intention of pursuing a full- Excludes the following qualification types time 1 year taught Masters on entry: degree. - Postgraduate teaching quals: PGCE, PGCI; - Part time unstructured qualifications; - Postgraduate diploma. Research Postgraduate Intake Research Postgraduate Includes the following academic Outcomes groupings on entry: Full-time Research - Research Doctorate Doctorate: outcomes are - Masters by Research (2 years or summarised only for those more) from the intake population - Masters by Research ( 1 year, who entered with the including Mode BC); intention of pursuing a full- time Doctorate by Research. - Research Supervised Postgraduate. Excludes the following qualification types on entry: - Higher Doctorate.
3. Merger with Moray House Institute of Education 1998/99: Figures do not include those students who entered into Moray House Institute of Education in 1998/99. The University of Edinburgh student record absorbed only those students who were still on programme at the point of merger. Thus, those who entered Moray House between 1 August 1995 and 1 August 1998, and withdrew or successfully completed before the point of merger at 1 August 1998 were not merged into the University of Edinburgh Student Record System and are not reflected in the aggregate data. For contextual information, the following table summarises the number of students within the intake populations as defined above who were “merged” into DACS, by intake year:
Intake Year Undergraduate Taught Research Postgraduate Postgraduate 1998/99 388 15
4 4. Outcome Category Definitions: outcomes are presented in terms of (i) the summary status of the population at 31/07/2008 by various categories and (ii) degree classification or degree type achieved by those who have completed. The following table provides further definitions for those categories which have been derived from fields in DACS:
Transfer to another A sub-category of the “withdrawn” field in DACS institution Return to a new prog- A sub-category of the “withdrawn” field in DACS ramme of study Withdrawal This category should not be equated with the commonly used term “drop-out”. It is derived from the following, wider, range of sub- categories of the “withdrawn” field in DACS: - Academic - Discipline - Financial - Gone into employment - Health/medical - Lapse of time so written off - Personal - Other reason - Unknown reason - Death Non-Honours Represents aggregate outcomes for those who classification entered to pursue an Honours degree but exited with another type of qualification which, in the vast majority of cases, will be a sub-Honours qualification such as an Ordinary degree or Certificate. In a very small number of cases, however, this category includes students who entered for an Honours degree but exited with an equivalent/higher type of qualification such as the MBChB. Note these Non-Honours awards (as with the other classification categories) represent those achieved after “successful completion” and not those given to students on premature withdrawal.
5. Abbreviations:
HSS College of Humanities & Social UoE University of Edinburgh Science SCE College of Science & UG Undergraduate Engineering Med Schools in Medicine PGT Taught Postgraduate
5 Vet Royal (Dick) School of PGR Research Postgraduate Veterinary Studies MVM College of Medicine & FE/HE Further Education/Higher Veterinary Medicine Education
6 2. Undergraduate entrants - Intakes
The following figures show intakes of undergraduate entrants 1998/99 to 2007/08.
2.1 Gender Figure 1: Proportion of female undergraduate entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
Proportion of Female Undergraduate entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
90%
80%
70%
60% UoE Humanities & Social Science 50% Science & Engineering 40% Medicine 30% Vet Medicine 20%
10%
0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
2.2 Disability
Figure 2: Proportion of disabled undergraduate entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
Proportion of undergraduate entrants declaring a disability by year of entry, total university 1998/99 to 2007/08
10.0% 9.5% 9.0% 8.5% 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
2.3 Ethnicity Figure 3: Proportion of undergraduate entrants from an ethnic minority, 1998/99 to 2007/08
7 Proportion of undergraduate UK-domiciled ethnic minority undergraduate entrants (as a proportion of all known), 1998/99 to 2007/08, UoE, HSS, SCE, Med & Vet
18% 16% 14% 12% UoE HSS 10% SCE 8% MED 6% VET 4% 2% 0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
Figure 4: Proportion of undergraduate entrants, split by ethnic background, 2007/08
UK Domiciled First Degree entrants by ethnicity grouping (of known ethnicity), 2007/08
2.5%
Asian
Black 94.5% 5.5% 0.3% 0.3% Mixed
White
Other Background 2.4%
n = 3,575 n = 199
2.4 Age on entry Figure 5: Distribution by age group for undergraduate entrants, 2007/08
Distribution by Age groups for Undergraduate entrants for overall and split by college 2007/08
100%
80%
25 or over 60% 21 to 24 18 to 20 40% 17 or under
20%
0% UoE (n = 4316) HSS (n = 2425) SCE (n = 1464) MED (n = 297) VET (n = 130)
8
2.5 Previous Institution type Figure 6: Proportion of undergraduates split by known previous institution type, 2007/08
Proportion of UK-domiciled undergraduate entrants by known Previous Institution type, for overall and separately by college, 2007/08 (State includes FE and HE institutions)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Independent 50% 40% State 30% 20% 10% 0% UoE (n = 3516) HSS (n = 2010) SCE (n = 1177) MED (n = 244) VET (n = 85)
9 3. Postgraduate Taught – Intakes
The following figures show intakes of postgraduate taught entrants 1998/99 to 2007/08.
3.1 Gender Figure 7: Proportion of female postgraduate taught entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
Proportion of Postgraduate Taught female entrants, split by College of entry, 1998/99 to 2007/08
100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% UoE 60.00% Humanities & Social Science 50.00% Science & Engineering 40.00% Medicine 30.00% Vet Medicine 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
3.2 Disability Figure 8: Proportion of disabled postgraduate taught entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
Proportion of postgraduate taught entrants declaring a disability by year of entry, total university 1998/99 to 2007/08
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
3.3 Ethnicity Figure 9: Proportion of ethnic minority postgraduate taught entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
10 Proportion of postgraduate taught UK-domiciled ethnic minority undergraduate entrants (as a proportion of all known), 1998/99 to 2007/08, UoE, HSS, SCE, Med & Vet
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
UoE HSS SCE
Figure 10: Postgraduate taught entrants, split by known ethnic background, 2007/08
UK Domiciled postgraduate taught entrants by ethnicity grouping (of known ethnicity), 2007/08
2%
4% Asian
Black
83% 17% Mixed
1% White
Other Background 10%
(n = 123) (n = 714) 3.4 Age on entry Figure 11: Age on entry of postgraduate taught entrants, 2007/08
Age groups of Postgraduate Taught entrants, 2007/08
100% 90% 80% 70%
60% 25 or over 50% 21 to 24 40% 18 to 20 30% 20% 10% 0% UoE (n = 2173) HSS (n = 1499) SCE (n = 486) MED (128) VET (n = 60)
11 4. Postgraduate Research entrants - Intakes
The following figures show intakes of postgraduate research entrants 1998/99 to 2007/08.
4.1 Gender
Figure 12: Proportion of female postgraduate research entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
Proportion of Female Research Postgraduate entrants, overall and by college, 1998/99 to 2007/08
90% 80% 70% 60% UoE Humanities & Social Science 50% Science & Engineering 40% Medicine 30% Vet Medicine 20% 10% 0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
4.2 Ethnicity Figure 13: Proportion of ethnic minority postgraduate research entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
Propotion of research postgraduate, UK Domiciled, of known Ethnic Minority, 1998/99 to 2007/08
16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
12 Figure 14: postgraduate research entrants, split by known ethnic background, 1998/99 to 2007/08
UK Domiciled postgraduate research entrants by ethnicity grouping (of known ethnicity), 2007/08
1% 2% Asian Black Mixed 91% 9% 1% White Other Background
5% (n = 41)
(n = 441)
4.3 Age on entry Figure 15: Age on entry of postgraduate research entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
Proportions of Age on entry of Research Postgraduate entrants, overall and by college, 2007/08
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 25 or over 50% 21 to 24 40% 18 to 20 30% 20% 10% 0% UoE (n = 957) HSS (n = 411) SCE (n = 350) MED (n = 158) VET (n = 38)
4.4 Disability Figure 16: Proportion of disabled postgraduate research entrants, 1998/99 to 2007/08
Proportion of postgraduate research entrants declaring a disability by year of entry, total university 1998/99 to 2007/08
6.5% 6.0%
5.5% 5.0% 4.5% 4.0%
3.5% 3.0% 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
13 5. Undergraduate entrants - Outputs
The following figures show outcomes of undergraduate entrants 1998/99 to 2003/04.
5.1 Gender Figure 17: Outcomes of undergraduate entrants, split by gender, 1998/99 to 2003/04
Completions and Withdrawal rates for full-time honours entrants, 1997/98 to 2003/04, split by gender
100%
80% Female Completed 60% Female Withdrawn 40% Male Completed Male Withdrawn 20%
0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 Female Completed 87.00% 85.00% 85.30% 84.80% 82.40% 83.40% Female Withdrawn 10.40% 10.70% 10.10% 12.20% 14.60% 13.10% Male Com pleted 82.20% 81.20% 81.00% 79.10% 78.40% 75.40% Male Withdrawn 14.40% 13.80% 14.30% 17.50% 17.40% 19.90%
Figure 18: Outcomes of undergraduate entrants in HSS, split by gender, 1998/99 to 2003/04
Completion and Withdrawal rates of full-time Honours entrants 1998/99 to 2003/04 in HSS 100%
80% Female Completed 60% Female Withdraw n 40% Male Completed 20% Male Withdraw n 0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 Female Completed 87.10% 85.80% 86.10% 85.70% 84.40% 84.30% Female Withdrawn 10.60% 10.70% 10.20% 12.20% 13.10% 12.70% Male Completed 87.10% 84.80% 84.70% 82.70% 83.40% 81.20% Male Withdrawn 10.60% 11.50% 12.80% 14.80% 12.80% 15.30%
14 Figure 19: Outcomes of undergraduate entrants in SCE, split by gender, 1998/99 to 2003/04
Completion and Wthdrawal rates for full-time Honours entrants 1998/99 to 2003/04 for SCE 100%
80% Female Completed 60% Female 40% Withdraw n Male Completed 20% Male 0% Withdraw n 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 Female Completed 86.80% 83.40% 83.20% 82.90% 77.40% 81.20% Female Withdrawn 10.00% 10.80% 9.70% 12.10% 18.40% 14.20% Male Completed 78.70% 78.20% 77.70% 75.80% 73.30% 69.80% Male Withdrawn 17.20% 15.70% 15.70% 20.00% 22.00% 24.40%
Figure 20: Outcomes of undergraduate entrants, 1998/99 to 2003/04
Distribution of final classification outcomes of Female full-time honours completions, 2000/01 to 2003/04 100%
50% 1st 2.1 0% 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 2.2 1st 13.2% 16.5% 18.3% 19.1% 3rd 2.1 60.7% 58.8% 58.0% 59.2% Non-Honours 2.2 16.9% 16.3% 17.2% 15.9% 3rd 1.1% 1.7% 1.1% 1.1% Non- Honours 8.2% 6.3% 5.4% 4.7%
Figure 21: Outcomes of undergraduate entrants, 1998/99 to 2003/04
Distribution of final classification outcomes of Male full-time honours entrants, 2000/01 to 2003/04
100% 80% 1st 2.1 60% 2.2 40% 3rd 20% Non-Honours 0% 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04
1st 16.0% 16.8% 16.7% 18.6% 2.1 51.4% 50.5% 52.5% 50.5% 2.2 21.1% 21.1% 21.2% 20.4% 3rd 3.1% 3.4% 2.2% 2.4% Non-Honours 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.1%
15 Ethnicity Figure 22: Outcomes of undergraduate entrants, split by white and non-white ethnicity, 1998/99 to 2003/04
Completion and Withdrawal rates of White and Non-white full-time, UK-domiciled, of known ethnic background Honours entrants 1998/99 to 2003/04
100.00%
80.00% Non-White Completed 60.00% Non-White Withdra wn 40.00% White Completed White Withdrawn 20.00%
0.00% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 Non-White Completed 88.20% 87.00% 82.20% 83.20% 77.60% 78.20% Non-White Withdraw n 8.60% 8.70% 11.00% 14.10% 16.70% 15.40% White Completed 84.50% 82.90% 83.10% 82.00% 80.50% 80.10% White Withdrawn 12.60% 12.20% 12.10% 14.80% 16.10% 15.90%
Figure 23: Final classifications of undergraduate entrants, split by white and non-white ethnicity, 1998/99 to 2003/04
Final classifications of full-time, Uk-domiciled, of known ethnic background Honours entrants 1998/99 to 2003/04, split by white and non-white
100% 9% 6% 8% 6% 7% 9% 7% 5% 7% 11% 5% 13% 2% 6% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 90% 4% 7% 4% 4% 6% 19% 18% 17% 80% 19% 19% 18% 22% 28% 22% 32% 70% 24% 23% Non-Honours 60% 3rd 50% 57% 56% 58% 57% 56% 2.2 53% 52% 40% 47% 56% 51% 51% 30% 52% 2.1 20% 1st 16% 18% 20% 10% 11% 15% 9% 15% 9% 15% 13% 10% 0% 7% Non- White Non- White Non- White Non- White Non- White Non- White White White White White White White
98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04
5.3 Disability Figure 24: Final classifications of undergraduate disabled entrants, 1998/99 to 2003/04
16 Final Classification outcomes of full-time honours entrants with a declared disability 2000/01 to 2003/04
100% 90% 80%
70% 1st 60% 2.1 50% 2.2 40% 3rd 30% Non-Honours 20% 10% 0% 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04
5.4 Age on entry Figure 25: Outcomes of undergraduate entrants, split by age group, 1998/99 to 2003/04
Final classifications of honours entrants 2003/04, split by age on entry
100% 3.10% 2.50% 3.70% 3.50% 90% 14.60% 18.90% 23.60% 25.00% 80% 70% Still to complete 60% Withdrawn 50% Transfer to another institution 81.70% Returning to a new programme of study 40% 76.30% 70.80% 71.10% Completed 30% 20%
10% 0% 17 or under 18 to 20 21 to 24 25 or over
5.5 Previous Institution Figure 26: Final classifications of undergraduate entrants, split by previous institution type, 1998/99 to 2003/04
Final Classification of 2003/04 UK-domiced, of known previous institution, honours entrants, split by previous institution type
100% 3.6%1.0% 6.9% 2.0% 90% 14.7% 80% 19.0% 70% Non-Honours 60% 3rd 50% 2.2 63.4% 52.1% 40% 2.1 30% 1st 20% 10% 17.3% 20.0% 0% Independent State
17 6. Postgraduate Taught Outcomes
The following figures show outcomes of postgraduate taught entrants 2001/02 to 2005/06.
6.1 Gender Figure 27: Outcomes of postgraduate taught entrants, split by gender, 2001/02 to 2005/06
Completion and Withdrawal rates for Postgraduate Taught entrants, 1998/99 to 2005/06, split by gender
100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% Female Completed 60.0% Female Withdrawn 50.0% Male Completed 40.0% Male Withdrawn 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06
Figure 28: Outcomes of postgraduate taught entrants in HSS, split by gender, 2001/02 to 2005/06
Completion and Withdrawal rates for Postgraduate Taught entrants, 2001/02 to 2005/06, for HSS split by gender
100% 80% HSS Female Completed 60% HSS Male Completed % 40% HSS Female Withdraw n HSS Male Withdraw n 20% 0% 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06
HSS Female Completed 95.20% 94.90% 92.40% 95.80% 95.40% HSS Male Completed 94.00% 93.90% 93.90% 95.30% 94.40% HSS Female Withdraw n 4.80% 4.40% 6.70% 3.70% 3.30% HSS Male Withdraw n 6.00% 4.80% 4.70% 4.70% 4.80%
Figure X: Outcomes of postgraduate taught entrants in SCE, split by gender, 2001/02 to 2005/06
18 Completion and Withdrawal rates for Postgraduate Taught entrants 2001/02 to 2005/06 for CSE, split by gender
100% 80% CSE Female Completed 60% CSE Male Completed % 40% CSE Female Withdraw n CSE Male Withdraw n 20% 0% 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06
CSE Female Completed 95.10% 94.70% 92.10% 95.90% 90.30% CSE Male Completed 86.20% 92.50% 95.30% 91.80% 89.20% CSE Female Withdraw n 4.90% 4.30% 7.90% 4.10% 8.90% CSE Male Withdraw n 12.30% 7.50% 4.30% 6.70% 10.50%
Figure 29: Withdrawal rates of postgraduate taught entrants, split by gender, 2001/02 to 2005/06
Withdrawal rates for Postgraduate Taught entrants, 2001/02 to 2005/06, split by gender 9% 8% 7% 6% Female 5% Withdrawn 4% Male 3% Withdrawn 2% 1% 0% 01/02 (n = 414, 02/03 (n = 553, 03/04 (n = 623, 04/05 (n = 689, 05/06 (n = 785, 393) 623) 582) 622) 734)
6.2 Disability Figure 30: Completion rates of disabled postgraduate taught entrants,, 1998/99 to 2005/06
Completion rates for Postgraduate Taught entrants with a declared disability, 1999/00 to 2005/06
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70% 98/99 (n = 34) 99/00 (n = 44) 00/01 (n = 31) 01/02 (n = 19 02/03 (n = 37) 03/04 (n = 40) 04/05 (n = 51) 05/06 (n = 41)
6.3 Ethnic Minority Figure 31: Completion rates of disabled postgraduate taught entrants, 1998/99 to 2005/06
19 Completion rate of Ethnic Minority entrants 1998/99 to 2005/06 (Ethnic Minority n = 21, 14, 36, 28, 33, 31, 43, 90) (White n = 283, 267, 265, 256, 341, 344, 355, 376)
100.0%
95.0%
90.0% Ethnic Minority White 85.0%
80.0%
75.0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06
6.4 Age on entry Figure 32: Withdrawal rates of postgraduate taught entrants, split by age group, 1998/99 to 2005/06
Withdrawal rates for Postgraduate Taught entrants 1998/99 to 2005/06, split by age group
8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 21 to 24 4.00% 25 or over 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06
20 7. Postgraduate Research Outcomes
The following figures show outcomes of postgraduate research entrants 1998/99 to 2007/08.
7.1 Gender Figure 33: Completion rates of postgraduate research entrants, split by gender, 1998/99 to 2002/03
Completion rates of PhD entrants, 1998/99 to 2002/03, split by gender
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Female 50% Male 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
7.2 Ethnicity Figure 34: Completion and withdrawal rates of postgraduate research entrants, split by ethnic background grouping, 1998/99 to 2002/03
Aggregate completion and withdrawal rates of Uk-domciled, of known ethic background, entrants 1998/99 to 2002/03, split by ethnic group 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Ethnic Minority 40% White 30% 20% 10% 0% completion rate (n = 74, 1088) withdrawal rate (n = 74, 1088)
7.3 Age on entry Figure 35: Completion and withdrawal rates of postgraduate research entrants, split by age on entry grouping, 1998/99 to 2002/03
21 Completion and Withdrawal rates of PhD entrants 1998/99 to 2002/03, split by age on entry group
100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 21 to 24 Completed 60.0% 25 or over Completed 50.0% 21 to 24 Withdrawn 40.0% 25 or over Withdrawn 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02
22 8. Student comparison data
Comparison data are shown for The University of Edinburgh and the Russell Group in order to examine both gender and disability. For ethnicity, three groups of other Universities are used as comparators: these groups are: Edinburgh institutions; Scottish institutions and the Russell Group.
In all the analyses, The University of Edinburgh is excluded from the group figures. Data for Edinburgh institutions include Edinburgh College of Art, Napier University, Queen Margaret University and the Scottish Agricultural College. This group excludes Heriot-Watt University due to a high proportion of students’ ethnicity ‘not known’ which if included skew the figures. Figures for Scottish institutions include the data for Heriot-Watt University as the overall effect on is diluted.
Ethnicity data are reported for UK domiciled students, whose ethnic background is known. Disability data include only known data. If the information for a student has not been collected, this is classified as ‘unknown’ and excluded from the analysis.
All comparison data are extracted from HESA and relates to academic year 2006/07.
8.1 Gender Comparing the proportion of female undergraduate students of all the Russell Group Universities, The University of Edinburgh has the seventh highest proportion at just over 50%.
Figure 36: Comparison of proportion of female first degree students, Russell Group, 2006/07
Proportion of female first degree students in Russell Group institutions, 2006/07
70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% % female 30.0% Median 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
al k e d L n s ff e ri SE g el ool ns g L UC rp urgh ham gham ffi ee g eed lle Oxford brid n Bristol mpto nb L Cardi o Impe m a Qu C Warwic She Live Glasgow s Ca Newcastle anchesteruth Edi irmin Notti M o B ing S K
23 For the proportion of female postgraduate taught students, The University of Edinburgh lies third in the Russell Group, with over 60% of postgraduate taught students being female.
Figure 37: comparison of proportion of female Postgraduate Taught students, Russell Group, 2006/07
Proportion of female Postgraduate Taught students in Russell Group institutions, 2006/07
80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% % female 40.0% Median 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% l k rd le o iff E e n m s h w ic o o d S g to n rg o f rp UCL L le eds e u g x e effield l e b s O Car h Bristol o L ngham mp n la Imperial wcast iv C i a Que Warw e L S s th G N g u Edi Cambridge Manchester in Nott o Birmingha K S
For postgraduate research students, The University of Edinburgh is ranked sixth, just above the median.
Figure 38: comparison of proportion of female Postgraduate Research students, Russell Group, 2006/07
Proportion of female Postgraduate Research students in Russell Group institutions, 2006/07
60.0%
50.0% 40.0% % female 30.0% Median 20.0% 10.0%
0.0% l d k iff ter tle E d m tol s s eds poo S ens rgh a ffiel e wic a e r L ham e u h gow UCL llege e mpton h c L e g Car u b g s o a Oxfordc w iv in in Bris Imperial Sh n War e L Q Gla Cambridge a N Ed gs C outh M Nott Birmin n S Ki
8.2 Disability The proportion of students at The University of Edinburgh with a declared disability lies well above the Russell Group median; and the institution lies third amongst the Group.
24 Figure 39: comparison of proportion of students with a declared disability, Russell Group, 2006/07
Proportion of students of known disability status, with a declared disability, Russell Group comparison, 2006/07 10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0% Proportion of students with a known disability 5.0% Median for RG 4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
L e s ial ge E er tl ns tol ool d m r d C S ford st e s ield gow ton wick U L e rp ee s ha p ar bri Cardiff Ox h cas Bri eff L Impe c Que h am W am ew Live S Gla th C an N Edinburghotting u Birmingham M N Kings College So
8.3 Ethnicity Figure 40 shows a comparison of the proportion of ethnic minority students in The University of Edinburgh and three comparator groups. The University of Edinburgh shows a profile very similar to the other Edinburgh and Scottish Institutions although a higher proportion ethnic minority postgraduate research students.
Figure 40: comparison of proportion of ethnic minority students, by study level and comparator groups, 2006/07
Comparison of proportions of ethnic minority groups, of UK-domicile and known ethnicity, by level and accross peer institution groups 16% 14% Edinburgh 12% 10% Edinburgh Institutions (excluding Heriot- 8% Watt) 6% Scottish sector 4% 2% Russell Group 0% PGR (n = 1790, PGT (n = 2580, UG (n = 14315, Overall (n = 18385, 255, 4695, 28385) 2735, 24715, 11180, 94830, 14170, 124240, 47610) 224050) 300045)
Figures 41, 42 and 43 show a comparison of specific ethnic minority groups across the three comparator groups. For the Edinburgh institutions group, Heriot-Watt University has been excluded from the analysis.
Figure 41: comparison of proportion of Black students, split by study level and peer groups, 2006/07
25 Comparison of proportions of Black students, UK- domiciled, of known ethnicity, by level and accross peer institution groupings, 2006/07 3.5% Edinburgh Uni 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% Edinburgh institutions (excluding 1.0% 0.5% Heriot-Watt) 0.0% Scottish sector PGR (n = PGT (n = UG (n = Overall (n = 1790, 255, 2580, 2735, 14315, 18385, Russell Group 4695, 24715, 11180, 14170, 28385) 47610) 94830, 124240, 224050) 300045)
Figure 42: comparison of proportion of Asian students, split by study level and peer groups, 2006/07
Comparison of proportions of Asian students, UK-domiciled, of known ethnicity, by level and accross peer institution groupings, 2006/07 10% 8% Edinburgh Uni 6% 4% Edinburgh institutions (excluding Heriot- 2% Watt) 0% Scottish sector PGR (n = 1790, PGT (n = 2580, UG (n = 14315, Overall (n = 255, 4695, 2735, 24715, 11180, 94830, 18385, 14170, Russell Group 28385) 47610) 224050) 124240, 300045)
Figure 43: comparison of proportion of Chinese students, split by study level and peer groups, 2006/07
Comparison of proportions of Chinese students, UK- domiciled, of known ethnicity, by level and accross peer institution groupings, 2006/07 5% 4% Edinburgh Uni 3% 2% 1% Edinburgh institutions (excluding 0% Heriot-Watt) PGR ( n = PGT ( n = UG (n = Overall (n = Scottish sector 1790, 255, 2580, 2735, 14315, 11180, 18385, 14170, 4695, 28385) 24715, 47610) 94830, 124240, Russell Group 224050) 300045)
26 9. Spotlight on ethnicity The proportion of ethnic minority students (UK domiciled only) at the University of Edinburgh for the year 2006/07 was 6.4%. In this focused section on ethnicity, we explore the available data in more detail, both through comparing the University of Edinburgh with a range of other institutions and through analysing aspects of our own data in some depth.
9.1 Proportion of Ethnic Minority Students: Comparisons with other institutions As can be seen from Figure 1, the University of Edinburgh has a higher proportion of ethnic minority students when compared to other Edinburgh and Scottish institutions, but a lower proportion when compared to the Russell Group as a whole. Trends over time suggest a slow growth at the University of Edinburgh when compared to other Edinburgh institutions.
Figure 44: Comparison of Proportion of Ethnic Minority students across different institutions
Proportion of UK domiciled, ethnic minority students, with known ethnicity, 2002/03 to 2006/07, split by Edinburgh University, Russell Group, Scottish and Edinburgh institutions
20% 2002/03 15% 2003/04 10% 2004/05 5% 2005/06 0% Edinburgh The University Scottish 2006/07 institutions Russell Group of Edinburgh institutions (excluding The 2002/03 5.7% 4.1% 4.3% 12.5% 2003/04 5.6% 4.4% 4.4% 13.3% 2004/05 6.0% 4.7% 4.5% 13.7% 2005/06 6.2% 5.1% 4.8% 14.0% 2006/07 6.4% 5.6% 5.2% 14.4%
Heriot-Watt University was excluded from the Edinburgh institutions due to high proportion of students with an unknown ethnic background1 making the data unreliable.
Many factors contribute to these different proportions, including the ethnic diversity of the local population and the subject-mix of Universities (with different subjects traditionally attracting different ethnic groups). However, both these factors are subject to change, and the latter factor is one that can perhaps be influenced through specific actions.
1 Approximately 28% of UK domiciled students at Heriot-Watt University had an unknown ethnic background. For this reason the University was excluded from the Edinburgh Institutions.
27 To investigate the issue of the proportion of ethnic minority students in the University of Edinburgh, further analytical work has investigated trends over time. Four Universities, and the University of Edinburgh, with a similar proportion of ethnic minority students in 2002/03 are compared over time to see if the rate of increase has been similar over the period 2002/03 to 2006/07 for all the five institutions. Results are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 45: Comparison of proportion of ethnic minority students, 2002/03 to 2006/07 for selected institutions2
Proportion of UK-domiciled, with known ethnicity, Ethnic Minority students, for selected peer group, 2002/03 to 2006/07 10.0%
9.0% The University of Dundee 8.0% The University of Edinburgh 7.0% The University of Bristol 6.0% 5.0% Cardiff University 4.0% The University of Newcastle-upon- Tyne
2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2002/03 Ethn ic 2003/04 Ethn ic 2004/05 Ethnic 2005/06 Ethnic 2006/07 Ethnic Minority Minority Minority minority minority
In 2002/03 Edinburgh’s ethnic minority student population was 5.7% overall. Institutions with similar proportions in 2002/03 are compared for five years. Out of the four institutions selected here, Edinburgh’s proportion has risen at the slowest rate, increasing by 0.7 percentage points to 6.4%. Although there are differences between these institutions in terms of geographical location, subject mix and entry profiles, the slow increase demonstrated by The University of Edinburgh suggests it should aspire to increase its proportion of ethnic minority students.
9.2 Ethnic Minority Students: Applications and Offers Undergraduate admissions data (from UCAS) were analysed to explore whether applicants from different ethnic backgrounds were all as likely to receive offers. The first ratio is undergraduate offers as a proportion of all applications received. Table 2 splits the conversion ratio down into the two larger Colleges; figures for MVM were removed due to small student numbers. Figure 3 provides data for the whole institution.
2 It should be noted that Cardiff University is the result of a merger between University of Wales, College of Medicine and University of Wales, Cardiff in 2004/05
28 Table 2: Undergraduate offers as a proportion of all applications, by CHSS and CSE, 2007/08 HSS CSE Total Black (n = 262, 78, 379) 17.2% 59.0% 25.1% Asian (n = 675, 268, 1141) 28.4% 84.3% 40.4% Mixed (n = 703, 199, 984) 31.0% 81.4% 40.8% Other Ethnic Background (n = 115, 36, 170) 22.6% 69.4% 32.4% Overall Ethnic Minority (n = 1755, 581, 2674) 27.4% 79.0% 37.8% White (n = 24064, 8365, 35080) 28.9% 83.9% 41.7% Not given (n = 377, 91, 495) 31.3% 81.3% 40.6% Total (n = 26327, 9085, 38450) 28.8% 83.6% 41.4%
The data show that Black applicants are less likely to receive an offer than other ethnic minority applicants or white applicants, as are those from ‘other ethnic backgrounds). Although the application to offer ratio is substantially higher in CSE, similar differences are observed.
Figure 46: Comparison of undergraduate offers as a proportion of all applications, split by ethnic group. Data for all colleges included.
Percentage of undergraduate applications made an offer, split by overall Ethnic Minority and then ethnic background, 2007/08 entry
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Overall Ethnnic White (n = 35080) Mixed (n = 984) Asian (n = 1141) Other Ethnic Black (n = 379) Minority (n = 2674) Background (n = 170)
Figure 3 shows the proportion of offers to applications for all undergraduates. While Asian and mixed ethnic background students have similar or higher rates than White students, Black students, have lower rates, as do those identified as being of ‘other ethnic background’. Given that the admissions process takes place without knowledge of ethnic background, the reasons for this pattern are unclear and would require further analyses, using internal data, and further qualitative research. Statistical testing shows that offer proportion differs statistically significantly across the ethnic minority groups (p=0.001), a result partly due to the overall large numbers.
9.3 Ethnic Minority Students: Offers and Acceptances Further analyses were conducted on the ‘acceptance rate’, which considers the proportion of accepted offers (entrants) to offers made. An applicant may be made more than one offer. The results show that the ‘acceptance rate’ is lower for Black students across both HSS and SCE; the patterns for other ethnicities varies between the two colleges, with SCE having lower acceptance rates for Asian and Other Ethnic
29 backgrounds, and HSS for Mixed and Other backgrounds. Again, further research is required to examine the reasons for this (are conditions of offers not attained or do applicants decide not to come even if condition of offer is attained?). Further analyses of internal data and qualitative research may shed light on these issues. Statistical testing (chi sq test) shows the acceptance proportion does differ statistically significantly across the ethnic minority groups, but only at the borderline p value of 0.049, partly due to the smaller overall numbers.
Table 3: Undergraduate entrants as a proportion of all offers, 2007/08 HSS SCE Total Asian (n = 192, 226, 461) 27.1% 11.9% 20.6% Black (n = 45, 46, 95) 17.8% 4.3% 12.6% Mixed (n = 218, 162, 401) 24.8% 16.7% 22.4% Other Ethnic Background (n = 26, 4, 55) 26.9% 8.0% 18.2% Overall Ethnic Minority (n = 481, 459, 1012) 25.2% 12.6% 20.5% White (n = 6961, 7019, 14632) 28.5% 16.3% 23.4% Not given (n = 118, 9, 74) 22.0% 21.6% 22.4% Total (n = 7579, 7594, 15907) 28.2% 16.1% 23.2%
Figure 47: Comparison of entrants as a proportion of offers, by ethnic group
Percentage of undergraduate offers that are accepted, split by overall ethnic minority and then ethnic background, 2007/08 entry
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% Overall Ethnic White (n = 14632) Mixed (n = 401) Asian (n = 461) Other Ethnic Black (n = 495) Minority (n = 1012) Background (n = 55)
9.4 Comparisons with other institutions Detailed UCAS conversion rate data for other institutions and the sector is not currently available. Contact is being made with UCAS to discuss whether this would be possible in the future and the cost implications of this.
30