Eric Ed502362
Eric Ed502362
Eric Ed502362
Students Studying in
English Higher
Education
Institutions
Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
1.
Introduction
3
3
8
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.
4.
5.
9
10
13
14
18
19
20
22
25
29
31
Future Plans
32
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
32
34
36
37
38
Implications
39
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
39
40
41
41
Provision of Courses
Post-graduate recruitment
Study and work balance
Tuition fee loans
Appendix 1
43
Appendix 2
44
Appendix 3
Tables
45
Appendix 4
71
Appendix 5
72
Table Index
Table 1
Nationality of respondents
45
Table 2
Gender of respondents
46
Table 3
Country of origin
47
Table 4
48
Table 5
48
Table 6
48
Table 7
49
Table 8
49
Table 9
50
Table 10
50
Table 11
51
Table 12
52
Table 13
53
Table 14
54
Table 15
55
Table 16
56
Table 17
56
Table 18
57
Table 19
57
Table 20
57
Table 21
58
Table 22
58
Table 23
59
Table 24
59
Table 25
60
Table 26
60
Table 27
61
Table 28
61
Table 29
61
Table 30
62
Table 31
62
Table 32
62
Table 33
62
Table 34
63
Table 35
63
Table 36a
64
Table 36b
64
Table 37
65
Table 38
66
Table 39
67
Table 40
68
Table 41
69
Table 42
70
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their thanks to the members of the project
steering group and, in particular, Deborah Beck, the project manager at DIUS,
for their guidance and insights during the study.
We are most grateful to the participating higher education institutions that
facilitated this study by contacting their non-UK European Union students and
providing them with the link to the survey. Thanks are also due to Hobsons
liaison team, who contacted all English higher education institutions and
provided ongoing support throughout the period of the survey, and to staff at
trendence, who hosted the online survey. We are also most grateful to the
students who helped with the initial development of the questionnaire and to
those who took the time to complete it; their views made an invaluable
contribution to the research.
We would like to express our sincere thanks to Mark Puncher at Hobsons,
who was involved in many of the negotiations in the early stages of the
research, and to staff at NFER, including Charlynne Pullen, who was involved
in the design phase of the study including the focus groups and cognitive
interviewing, Lisa ODonnell and Laura Harries, who helped with the data
analyses, and Sue Stoddart for her efficient administrative and secretarial
support.
Executive Summary
This study aimed to identify the pathways, intentions and relevant perceptions
of (non-UK) European Union (EU) students entering English higher education.
It sought to identify why students wished to obtain an English HE qualification,
their attitudes towards the uptake and repayment of tuition fee loans and their
future career plans. Drawing on longitudinal data from the Higher Education
Statistics Agency (HESA) and from a national survey of (non-UK) EU
students in English Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), it aimed to provide a
better understanding of their views on (and use of) the Student Loans system,
in order to inform government policy and strategy in this area.
Key findings
An analysis of HESA data from 2002/03 to 2005/06 found that:
There was a growth in the numbers and the proportion of young people
from the Baltic States, Eastern Europe and late accession countries
(including Cyprus and Malta) and a decline in both the overall numbers
and the proportion of students coming from EU founder nations and other
western non-founder nations.
The principal attractions for studying in England had been its perceived
strong economic climate, the reputation of English education and
universities and previous experience of England.
Concern about debt was evident, with nearly one-quarter of all non-UK
EU students expressing worries about repaying existing or future loans.
Those who expressed most confidence in being able to pay back tuition
fee loans within a decade of graduating were those with the best level of
understanding of current financial mechanisms for students.
Methodology
The research team used both primary research and secondary analysis of
other data sources to ascertain the mobility patterns, anticipated destinations
and attitudes to student loan repayments of EU students. The study included
analyses of:
A detailed data extract from the HESA dataset for the period 2002/03 to
2005/06, obtained via the DIUS. This contained anonymised information
on non-UK EU students following degree courses in English HEIs.
Study findings
The analyses of HESA data and of the survey responses divided students
into three broad groups, representing the founder states (Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands), the other non-founder
(non-UK) western nations (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Spain,
Sweden and Portugal) and the Baltic States, Eastern European states and
other late accession countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia).
The findings from this study have been summarised in relation to non-UK EU
students choosing to study in England; non-UK EU students understanding
of tuition fee loans and their attitudes towards them; and respondents future
career and study plans.
ii
students has declined from 48,589 out of 79,020 students (61% of the total)
to 44,007 out of 92,627 (48% of the total). The percentage of founder nation
students has declined from 38% (30,239 out of 79,020) to 35% (32,892 out of
92,627) although actual numbers of students has increased slightly. By
contrast, there has been a growth in the numbers and the proportion of young
people from the Baltic States, Eastern Europe and late accession countries
from 0.2% (192 out of 79,020 students) to 17% (15,728 out of 92,627
students)..
The survey respondents were evenly divided across each of the three
regions, although respondent numbers varied, with 326 responses from
German students (the second largest source of non-UK EU students in
English HEIs), yet only four from Maltese students and four from Slovenian
students. Although now in an English HEI, more than three quarters of the
respondents had considered other countries first, identifying, between them,
over 30 different countries, both within and outside the EU. The reasons
students gave for studying in a country other than their own were related
primarily to:
the perceived strong economic climate, potential career prospects and the
opportunity to earn while studying and to get funding from England
The draw towards specific courses did not emerge as significant, although by
far the largest proportion of responding students were following full-time
courses in business and administration (26%), with a high proportion on
social science courses (15%). The numbers following STEM courses
(science, technology, engineering and maths) ranged from eight per cent on
engineering and technology courses, to around two per cent on mathematics
courses, while, in total, around seven per cent were studying medicine or
dentistry or subjects allied to medicine.
The dominance of business and administration studies was also evident
amongst all non-UK EU undergraduates in the HESA data. Over the last few
years, there has been a general shift in the courses being followed by non-UK
EU undergraduates, a shift that has not been consistent, however, across all
26 non-UK EU countries. While business and administration studies, for
instance, appeared to be both the largest and fastest growing course, the
iii
proportion of applicants for such places declined amongst the seven non-UK
non-founder nations. The proportion of entrants to most STEM subjects (other
than those related to medicine or biology), law and languages, in contrast,
have seen a marked decline.
Accompanying these shifts, there has also been a change in the pattern of
applications, with post-1992 universities appearing to benefit most from the
arrival of the students from the Eastern European countries, Baltic States and
the late accession countries, but losing favour amongst other non-founder EU
nations.
iv
Potential implications
The analyses of HESA data and the outcomes of the survey of non-UK EU
students have highlighted four areas that may have implications for future HE
provision for EU students. These relate to the ways in which HEIs may need
to consider:
vi
1.
Introduction
Following the introduction of the Bologna process in 1999 (to which the UK is
a signatory), the stated aim to create a European Union Higher Education
Area (EHEA) by 2010,1 and in the context of increasing European
collaboration and the facilitation of inter-country mobility, it is not surprising
that more and more European students are choosing to come to England to
pursue a higher education qualification. Between 2004/05 and 2005/06, for
example, first year undergraduate enrolments from European Union (EU)
countries increased by ten percentage points from 20,700 to 22,700 full-time
students (HESA, 2007). While there was no change in the proportion of first
year post-graduate enrolments for full-time courses, which remained steady
at 18,500, this was nonetheless an increase from the figure of 15,800
postgraduate students recorded by in HESA 2001/02.2
By EU law, EU students are required to pay tuition fees at the same level as
domestic students (and not at the higher level paid by their international [nonEU] counterparts). However, in England, they are also eligible for loans to
cover these tuition fees, indicating a government commitment to encouraging
the participation of such students in English higher education institutions
(HEIs). This is a promising movement from an economic perspective
(promoting the growth of UK higher education as a global export), particularly
given the UKs changing demography and the implications that this carries.3 It
also poses challenges for education providers and policy makers alike, in
terms of new, tailored strategies for marketing and attraction, enquiry
management, and student support arrangements.
1
2
See http://www.europeunit.ac.uk/bologna_process/signatory_countries.cfm
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2007). Higher Education Student Enrolments and
Qualifications Obtained at Higher Education Institutions in the United Kingdom for the
Academic Year 2005/06 (National Statistics First Release SFR 107) [online]. Available:
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/119/161/ [21 November, 2007] The
reference is to Table 2 - First year student enrolments on higher education courses by
level of study, mode of study and domicile, 2001/02 to 2005/06.
The UKs population is ageing, due to declines both in fertility rates and in the mortality
rate, which means that the number of under 16 years olds is falling (from 25% in mid1971 to 19% in mid-2004) and the proportion of people aged 65 and over is increasing
(from 13% in mid-1971 to 16% in mid-2004). Of relevance to the higher education sector,
this means that the number of school- and college-leavers (and therefore the number of
prospective HE students) to attract into higher education is decreasing.
seek to begin (or continue) repaying the loan, this translates to a potentially
complicated and resource-intensive challenge of tracking the mobility of
graduate borrowers outside of the UK, maintaining contact with them, and
securing loan repayments at the right level and at the right time.
1.1
Research Aims
This study, funded by DIUS and carried out by NFER in partnership with
Hobsons, sought to identify the pathways, intentions and relevant perceptions
of (non-UK) EU students entering English higher education. In particular, it
sought to identify why students wished to obtain an English HE qualification,
their attitudes towards the uptake and repayment of tuition fee loans and their
future career plans. The analysis that was undertaken aimed to provide
information to contribute to an understanding of factors that might contribute
to the effective management of the student loans system, and to inform
government policy and strategy in this area.
1.2
Research Methods
EU students currently represent a small but significant proportion of the
population of English HEIs. In most institutions, they form less than ten per
cent of the undergraduate student populace. This varies according to the type
of institution; EU students constitute a greater part of the student body in
some specialist HEIs, such as arts centres, for example. In 2005/06, the
median number of such students across all English universities was 322
(3.9% of the roll), although actual numbers on roll ranged from 1,537 (nine
per cent of the undergraduate population of one London institution) to none
(in seven institutions, only two of which recruited undergraduates). The
pattern of EU student enrolment, the courses onto which they enrol and their
subsequent destinations is not, therefore, uniform.
Using both primary research and the analysis of secondary data sources, the
research team sought to ascertain the mobility patterns, anticipated
destinations and attitudes to student loan repayments of EU students. The
study included analyses of:
A detailed data extract from the HESA dataset, obtained via the DIUS,
which contained anonymised information on non-UK EU students
following degree courses in English HEIs.
It should be noted that the sampling exercise for the study was undertaken before the
publication of the 2005/06 data and all estimations and power calculations for the
sampling exercises undertaken for this study, therefore, were based on published data
from 2004/05. It should be noted, however, that this initial analysis of the 2004/05 data
did not include students from the EU accession countries, or from Bulgaria and Romania.
Updated data from HESA, which incorporated these accession countries, suggests that
the population of non-UK EU students in 2004/05 was higher, at 88,272.
It was anticipated that questions around finance and debt might lead to a lower response
rate than other questions and so much work was done to try and elicit responses
sensitively and in non-threatening ways.
The survey was live between Friday 18th May and Friday 6th July, 2007.
During that seven week period, completed questionnaires were submitted by
2,968 respondents representing 67 HEIs, with a further 1,234 respondents
starting the questionnaire but not submitting it. Of the 2,968 who submitted
the questionnaire, 671 provided substantially incomplete or invalid
questionnaires and these were removed from the database, since they did not
include data that would have contributed to the study. These included 618
students (representing 24 of the 26 EU countries) who were following postgraduate courses. Most of these were working towards a post-graduate
degree, whether as a taught course (42%) or as a research degree (49%).
The remainder were working towards a post-graduate qualification, such as a
PGCE. The mean age of these respondents was 27.8, compared with the
mean age of 22.7 of those respondents following the undergraduate courses.
Survey respondents were, on average, marginally younger than the non-UK
EU student population as a whole; in 2005/06 the mean age for non-UK EU
post-graduates was 29.6, for undergraduates, it was 24. They were also
marginally younger than the mean for all English postgraduates (34.9) and
undergraduates (24.8).6
After data cleaning, a further 109 respondents were also removed from the
survey, 65 of whom had indicated that they were of British nationality, had
been educated in England and/or had lived in England for more than three
years prior to starting their current course. Others (44 respondents) were
removed because they provided insufficient information about themselves or
their courses to allow meaningful analyses.
While some analysis was conducted on the 2,188 respondents who remained
in the survey, the full analysis was carried out on only those young people
who indicated that they were currently in full-time study at an HEI (those on
part-time courses would not be eligible for tuition fee loans); this meant that
the final dataset for the analysis was 2,136. This dataset is large enough to
be sure that our analysis is robust in relation to the views, attitudes and
experiences of non-UK EU students. It should be noted, however, that while
we can be secure in undertaking analyses at EU-level or in relation to founder
nations, non-founder Western European nations and Eastern European,
Baltic States and late accession countries, we cannot be certain of making
6
It should be noted that these figures include students at the Open University, the
average age of whom is likely to be higher than those of young people in other
universities.
1.3
2.1
2.2
10
11
the gains appeared to be more in specialist colleges (an increase from 0.9%
to 1.5%) than in post-1992 institutions.
12
2.3
Some four per cent of the students either did not give a nationality (19 respondents) or
indicated that they had mixed nationality (57 students).
It should be noted that, although the proportion of responses from Cypriot students
(seven per cent) reflected their overall total in the non-UK EU student population (as
indicated in the HESA data), the responses from Maltese students (less than one per cent
of the survey responses) was not representative of the total population from Malta (nearly
nine per cent of the non-UK EU students in 2005/06). We have no way of knowing why
the non-response rate from Maltese students was so high.
13
to student tuition fees and loans) are able to control for the observed
disparities.
The majority of the 2,188 survey respondents (58% of whom were female)9
had been living in their home country before coming to England to study in an
HEI (Table 3 in Appendix 3). At least eight per cent, however, had been living
in the UK before starting their course, with more than half of these (53%)
having lived in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland for more than
three years prior to HEI entry (see Table 4 in Appendix 3).10 Most (at least
91%)11 had started their course since the beginning of the 2004/05 academic
year. The remaining nine per cent either gave no data on their current
courses (two per cent), or indicated that their course had started in 2003/04
(six per cent) or 2002/03 (less than one per cent). In effect, 43% of the survey
respondents (940 students) were first year undergraduates, while the
remainder were at different stages of their undergraduate studies.
2.4
9
10
11
12
14
While most of the respondents were studying for a first degree, nearly onefifth of the survey respondents had already attained a higher education
qualification. Ten per cent of these students (two per cent of all respondents)
said they had obtained this qualification from an English HEI and ten per cent
(again, two per cent of all respondents) said it was from a country other than
their own (see Table 9 in Appendix 3). Most (80%, that is, 16% of all
respondents), however, said that the previous qualification had been obtained
from their home country.
While students who had obtained a first degree from a country other than
their own were marginally more likely to suggest that they had come to
England for social and cultural reasons, this was not statistically significant.
Equally, the marginal difference noted in the likelihood that students who had
obtained a first degree in their own country and who had come to England
because of career prospects was not statistically significant.
The reasons students gave for studying in a country other than their own13
(whether this was for a first or second degree) and which appeared to explain
over 20% of the variance in responses between students of different ages,
from different countries or on different courses, fell into three broad areas. A
factor analysis of the reasons respondents gave suggested that these were
related primarily to:
13
15
14
15
The study did not obtain information about why students did not elect to go to these
countries. This may have been because they preferred the English course, but it may
equally have been because they were not able to obtain a place, could not find a suitable
course, could not get a visa or could not get funding, for instance.
It is important to set these findings alongside those reported by Sastry and Bekhradnia
(2007). In a summary of their full report on student experiences they reported that a
worrying proportion of international students believe they receive poor value for money
[from HE courses in English universities]. They concluded that this may be, in part, a
reflection of the lower intensity (in terms of taught hours) of courses in English HEIs
compared with those on mainland Europe.
http://www.hepi.ac.uk/downloads/33Theacademicexperienceofstudents2007summary.pdf
[9 November 2007]
16
These three factors explained one fifth of the variance in responses between
students of different ages, from different countries or on different courses.
Other factors appeared to have little real explanatory power in relation to the
actual decision made. These included previous family history and
experiences, such as having parents or friends who had studied in England
(true for 13% of respondents) or who had recommended English HEIs (24%
of respondents), issues related to the attraction of different institutions, the
availability (or lack of it) of particular courses or the pedagogical approaches
adopted to the course of study, and even the possibility of getting funding
from their home country (mentioned by five per cent of the respondents). This
picture was similar to that reported in relation to electing to study in a country
other than their own.
The importance of variables related to academic provision (the quality of
lecturers and researchers, study facilities and course reputation) and ultimate
career prospects, and those related to social and economic variables
dominated the factors that emerged as important when choosing a university
(see Table 14 in Appendix 3 for the basic frequency responses). Students
who focused on academic and career factors appeared to be less concerned
than those who identified social and economic factors about the presence of
students from their home country, about the people that they had met on
open days or about transport links to their home country, suggesting that their
focus may be more on future prospects than on any ideas of current
enjoyment. While the availability of specific HE-based scholarships or
bursaries was noted as very important or important by 47% of the
respondents and access to good student accommodation was seen as very
important or important by 52% of the respondents, neither variable
appeared to have much explanatory power by comparison with other
academic or social factors.
17
2.5
In summary
The period between 2002/03 and 2005/06 saw a notable change in the
proportions of students coming from each of the non-UK EU regions, with
increases in the contribution of the Eastern European, Baltic State and late
accession countries, but a decrease in the contribution of the non-founder EU
states. During that time changes were also evident in the subject areas being
studied, with decreases in the proportions following some of the STEM
courses (most notably in engineering) and increases in the proportion of
students taking up subjects such as business and administration (other than
from the non-founder EU nations, where such uptake declined).
The students responding to the survey reflected some of these changes, with
proportionally more responses from students from Eastern European and the
Baltic States. The pattern of subjects followed was also similar to that
identified in the HESA dataset. Students indicated that their primary reasons
for studying in a country other than their own were related to gaining
experience that would contribute to their future career, a perception that the
standard of education was higher in countries other than their own and that
career prospects were also better elsewhere. England had not been the only
country they had considered (respondents identified over 30 different
countries they had looked at before taking up a place in an English HEI), but
its principal attractions had been its perceived strong economic climate, the
reputation of English education and English universities and previous
experience of England (through visits or study).
18
3.
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
No response
Figure 3.2
50
40
Percentage
30
20
10
No response
16
It should be noted that, for questions around financial matters, non-response rates
increased to between 11% and 14%. In order to maintain comparability with other
responses in the study, the basic frequency figures are all based on the total response of
2,136 completed, submitted and valid surveys.
19
This potentially negative view of the cost of living and studying in England
was not universal, however. Around one-third of all respondents thought that
living costs were lower than they had expected (29%) or were just as they
had expected (three per cent) and over two-fifths thought that study costs
were lower (38%) or as they had expected (six per cent). Given that just over
one fifth of respondents (21%) had suggested that the fact that there was
plenty of information about studying in England had been one of the reasons
they had chosen to study here,17 while 13% said that the opportunity to get
funding in England had been one spur to chose an English HEI, how much
did non-UK EU students know about funding for EU students and how many
of them had taken advantage of potential loans?
3.1
Financial knowledge
Around 12% of all of the respondents to the survey correctly identified five or
more of true and false statements around questions of tuition fees, loans and
other financial support (see Table 15 in Appendix 3 for data on student
responses).
Figure 3.1 Percentage of students making correct responses (true or false)
80
70
60
% correct
50
40
30
20
10
0
All English
EU students pay
Students from all
All EU students are
EU students are
EU students are not
The amount of
universities charge lower fees than other countries are entitled
eligible for
entitled to financial liable to repay their
earnings before
the same fees (f)
international
to a tuition fee loan maintenance loans support from Access Tuition fee loans (f) starting to pay back
students (t)
(f)
from DfES (f)
to Learning (t)
is same for all EU
countries (f)
17
20
Only six respondents identified correctly all seven of the appropriate answers
to the statements given in the survey. For most students the areas of greatest
uncertainty (to which they responded not sure) were in relation to statements
about paying back student loans (51%), paying back tuition fee loans (45%)
and getting support from Access to Learning funds. By contrast, only five per
cent of students said they did not know whether or not EU students paid lower
tuition fees than other international students and seven per cent incorrectly
thought EU students paid the same (or higher) fees than international
students. This suggests that at least one of the messages about tuition fee
loans had been understood; the worry is that there is still a significant degree
of misunderstanding and confusion around tuition fees and tuition fee loans
and other financial support for non-UK EU students (which may well be
mirrored, of course, amongst UK students). That uncertainty exists was
reflected in responses that suggested that over half of the students in the
survey felt that either they did not know enough about different ways in which
to finance their studies, or were unsure whether there were other things they
should know (see Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
No response
Not true for me
Not sure
True for me
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
I am worried about being I do not think I will have
I think my university
I dont know enough
I am not sure how long it
in debt at the end of my any difficulties paying off could do more to help EU about different ways in will take me to pay back
course
my loans
students finance their which I could finance my
my loans or bank
courses
studies
overdraft
21
Levels of knowledge about tuition fee loans were highest amongst students
from the Eastern European countries and the Baltic States; the mean score
for these students was 2.71 against a mean of 2.52. Students from the six
founder countries scored 2.48, with the lowest mean scores amongst the
respondents being observed in responses from students from the nonfounder Western European countries.
At a country level, the highest levels of financial awareness scores appeared
to be amongst respondents from Slovakia (a mean of 3.28), Poland (a mean
of 3.19), the Czech Republic (3.15) and Hungary (3.09). The lowest scores
were found amongst the accession nations (Bulgaria, a mean of 1.71, and
Romania, a mean of 1.75) and amongst respondents from Cyprus (a mean of
1.95) and Luxembourg (a mean of 2.00).
3.2
18
19
Note that, in an earlier single response question, 29% reported that they were in part-time
work, whereas only 26% referred to such work in the later multiple-response question.
See Tables 17, 18 and 19
22
Nearly half of the respondents (48%) reported owning a credit card (11% of
the respondents said they had cards in both their home country and in
England), with 59% of the 1033 students who owned a card saying that they
paid off the balance they owed every month.20 For others, however, such
complete balance payments were made more occasionally (20% said they
paid the balance most of the time) or were not made at all (19% of the card
holders said they did not pay off the balance each month). Anticipated debt by
the end of the course ranged from nothing (this was the case for nearly onethird of the respondents) to more than 25,000 for three per cent of the
respondents (see Table 22 in Appendix 3).
For some students, levels of debt were clearly a concern. Thirty one per cent
were worried about finishing their course in debt and 24% believed they
would have difficulties paying off their various loans, with 27% uncertain how
long this process would take (see Table 23 in Appendix 3). In order to offset
current (and possibly future debts) some 40% of students had started parttime work at some point during their course. For nearly two fifths of these,
however, combining part-time work and studying had proved problematic.
Some (six per cent of all respondents) had already given up their part-time
job, precisely for this reason, while one-third of those who were still in work
(29% of all respondents) said they were finding it very difficult to manage their
course and a part-time job. In contrast, others (20% of all respondents)
reported no difficulties in balancing the various calls on their time (see Table
3.1).
20
23
Table 3.1
Part-time employment
20
48
No response
12
N=
2136
The mean number of hours worked by those who were finding it difficult to
cope was 21.8; in contrast, the mean number of hours worked by those who
said that it was manageable was 18.2, suggesting that the issue may be as
much (if not more) to do with the extent of part-time work undertaken than the
capacity of the individual to balance the various demands upon them.21. The
non-UK EU students in this study certainly reported higher levels of part-time
working than appeared to be the average in most of Europe. Gibbs,
commenting on a HEPI report by Sastry and Bekhradnia in 2007,22 reported
that students in mainland Europe worked, on average, eight to 15 hours
alongside their full-time study.23
21
22
23
24
24
25
26
This was 4.45 for 18-21 year olds at the time of the survey, but has now increased to
4.60. http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/pay/national-minimum-wage/index.html [17-1007]
West, A., Hind, A., Xavier, R., with Jupp, J. (2003). Evaluation of Aimhigher: Survey of
Opportunity Bursary Applicants 2001/02: Preliminary Findings (DfES Research Report
497). London: DfES [online]. Available:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR497.pdf [18 October, 2007].
Of those who were in receipt of a loan, most (80%) had said that they had started their
course within the last year (2006/07). Some, however, had clearly started their full-time
course earlier (mainly in 2004/05). It may be that, of the 531 who said they had a received
a tuition fee loan, up to 105 may have received this loan as a continuing rather than a
new student. Some of course, may have mistaken another form of financial loan for a
tuition fee loan. Since we have no way of ascertaining whether or not this is the case, the
analysis that has been conducted here is based on the assumption that all 531 of the
respondents who said they had applied for and received a loan, were indeed in receipt of
one.
25
loans attracted was good. These young people were also significantly more
likely (p<0.000) to have identified correctly the true and false statements
about tuition fees and other financial support outlined in Section 3.1 (Financial
Knowledge).
Eighty-two per cent (531 students) of all applicants received the loan for
which they applied; amongst those who reported how much they now owed
(473 respondents), current debt varied from 100 to 10,000; with a mean
debt of 3,092 (the median and mode amount, as would be expected for a
tuition fee loan, was 3,000).27 In nearly half of the cases (48 respondents)
where students had not received a loan, applicants reported that they had
been told that they were not eligible, with one noting that my parents earn too
much.28 Others gave various (unprompted) reasons; with some reporting
having withdrawn their application (two students) or having found other
sources of funds (six students). Some were still waiting to hear the outcome
of their application (12 students), but some (at least seven) said they did not
know why they had been rejected.
Of those who specifically reported that they did not apply for a loan (1,250
students, or 59% of all respondents), nearly half (47%) said that they did not
need one to help pay their tuition fees. Indeed, students who indicated that
they were using their own savings to pay their way, or had received financial
support from their family, or had funding from their home country, were
significantly less likely than other students to have applied for a loan. Those
using their own savings, for instance, were only two fifths as likely as other
students (an odds multiplier of 0.39)29 to say that they had applied for a tuition
fee loan.30 By contrast, those who were in part-time or full-time work,31or in
27
28
29
30
It is possible that a few respondents may have included other money they owed (whether
to the Student Loan Company or elsewhere) in the total owed to the SLC for tuition fee
loans. Some 66 students who had received a tuition fee loan reported that they were also
in receipt of a maintenance loan, which means that they were effectively being treated as
UK students and not as non-UK EU students. See Tables 28 to 32 in Appendix 3.
See Table 33 in Appendix 3.
An odds multiplier is a term used when calculating probabilities using logistic
regression. An odds multiplier of 1.00 means that one outcome is as likely as the
alternative. An odds multiplier of more than 1.00 means that an outcome (in this case,
applying for a loan) is more likely to occur than the alternative (not applying for a loan);
an odds multiplier of less than 1.00 means that it is less likely to happen. In this report,
we include only those outcomes where the results were significantly different from 1.00.
In financing their way through university, 1273 respondents (60%) said they had
obtained funding from their families, 682 said they were in some form of employment
(29%) and 572 students reported drawing on their own savings (27%); see Section 3.2
and Table 16, in Appendix 3.
26
receipt of a hardship or other bursary from their HEI were significantly more
likely than others to have applied for a loan, with those on bursaries (only six
per cent of the respondents) more than three times as likely (an odds
multiplier of 3.16) to be an applicant.
Ten per cent of the non-applicants said they had been told that they were not
eligible for a loan prior to applying (see Table 34 in Appendix 3). Others
(33%) were concerned about getting into debt to the Students Loan
Company, said that they found the information on the loans too confusing
(10%), that they had had not heard of the Students Loan Company (16%) or
that they did not know that they could apply for a loan (24%). Clearly, the
reasons for not applying for a loan were not solely financial. What were the
defining characteristics, if any, of the students who applied for loans (whether
or not they received them)?
A logistic regression model was constructed that controlled for respondents
age and gender, the region from which they came (founder nation, Western
European or Eastern European), the subjects they were studying, their plans
(whether for work or study, in England or elsewhere) after graduating and
their knowledge of financial support mechanisms (as indicated by their score
on the true/false questions). The analysis suggested that the most significant
factors associated with submitting an application were:
31
32
Respondent came from founder country (these students were around one
and a half times more likely to apply for a loan than students from other
Western European countries - an odds multiplier of 1.37).32 It should be
noted that a number of the non-founder Western nations (Sweden,
Norway, Denmark and Finland) have student support arrangements that
are funded and administered through government organisations. These
governments allow students studying in other EU countries to claim
support from their home country or the destination country, but not from
both.
A total of 65 respondents (three per cent) said they were both in a full-time job and in
full-time education.
Holland (a founder nation) also provides student funding in the form of a loan, while
some other countries make loans available through a government subsidy on loans
issued by national banks.
27
Students following courses in maths (40), medicine and dentistry (55) and
subjects allied to medicine (82) were significantly less likely than students
on other courses to have applied for loans.
Amongst the non-UK EU students, the countries within which the highest
proportion of students had been applicants for tuition fee loans were Latvia
(three-quarters of whom had applied for loans), Malta (two-thirds of whom
had applied for loans), Poland and Hungary (over half of whom, in each case,
had applied for loans). In the case of Poland and Hungary, students can apply
for student funding in the form of loans from either their own governments or
from England.33 It is not clear from the survey why Polish and Hungarian
students opted for tuition fee loans from England rather than from their home
countries.
Loan applications, therefore, appeared to be more forthcoming from students
who had access to (and understood) the financial information on tuition fee
loans and other sources of financial support, and were more likely to come
from students from the founder countries or the more recent accession
countries and from students following courses that appeared less clearly
linked, traditionally, to high future earnings potential. In an analysis of the
economic returns for different degree courses for the Royal Society of
Chemistry and the Institute of Physics (PWC, 2005), for example, the
research team found that the additional earnings premium attached to a
degree in medicine was significantly higher than that for social science
degrees.34
33
34
Bulgaria and Lithuania are considering the option of providing loans for students.
The research examined the relative returns of different degree subjects compared to
the returns that accrued from the achievement of two A level subjects. The percentage
hourly earnings premium from any degree subject was 23% higher than for two A levels
alone, but the returns from medicine (44%) and law (39%) were significantly higher than
the average, while the returns from other social science subjects particularly history (at
13%) were significantly lower. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (2005). The Economic
Benefits of Higher Education Qualifications [online]
Available:
http://www.rsc.org/images/EconomicBenefitsHigherEducationQualifications_tcm1812647.pdf [9 November, 2007].
28
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percentage
60%
No response
Not true for me
Not sure
True for me
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
I plan to pay off my I think it will take me I think it will take me I will put off paying
Tuition Fee Loan between five and 10 more than 10 years
my Tuition Fee
within five years
years to pay off my to pay off my Tuition Loan for as long as
Tuition Fee Loan
Fee Loan
possible
29
I would prefer to
I would prefer the
arrange the
repayments for my
repayments for my Tuition Fee Loan to
loan myself
happen
automatically
While respondents were largely undecided about the level of interest that
should be charged on tuition fee loans, and whether or not it should be linked
to inflation (and in which country), there was a higher level of preference for
fixed rate repayments not linked to inflation (35% supported this), or for
repayments that reflected the interest rate that was in place in England when
students took out their loan (38% felt that this would be fair). More than half
(54%), however, felt that any future rate that was fixed at a rate that was
higher than the interest rate in place in England for other loans would be
unfair (see Table 36a in Appendix 3). Based on their current understanding of
repayment plans, over one-third planned to pay off their loan within five years,
one-quarter thought it would take them up to 10 years, and 14% thought it
would take longer than a decade (see Figure 3.4, above).
Amongst those who had received a tuition fee loan, five variables appeared to
be significant indicators of whether or not respondents felt confident that they
would be able to pay back the loan within 10 years of graduating. Once age,
gender, country of origin, future plans, reasons for coming to England, plans
to stay in England and size of loan, for instance, had been taken into account,
those who believed they would have cleared the debt within the decade (in
descending order of significance) were:
Those with higher levels of knowledge on financial support mechanisms
(an odds multiplier of 1.55)
Those whose reasons for coming to England were academic rather than
economic or social (an odds multiplier of 1.09)
Female students were just over half as likely as male students to think they
would pay back their loan within 10 years. It is not known whether or not
these attitudes towards the paying back of loans reflect those of UK students
or of current patterns of repayment of student loans more generally;
information from the Student Loans Company suggests that loans have not
been in operation for long enough to identify patterns or make an assessment
of propensity for repayment.35
35
Over half of the respondents (51%) thought that non-UK EU students would repay their
loans, but over one-third were less sanguine. See Table 36b.
30
3.5. In summary
The extent of awareness around the availability of financial support and
around tuition fee loans, in particular, was mixed. While non-UK EU students
were generally aware that EU students paid lower tuition fees than
international students, there was still an element of confusion as to how they
would need to pay back any loans related to these. Just one-third of the
students had applied for a tuition fee loan; while some said they did not
require one in order to pay their fees, others were not aware of how to apply
or whether or not they were eligible. Levels of awareness were highest
amongst students from Eastern European countries and amongst those from
the Baltic States; students from these countries were also significantly more
likely to have applied for a loan than students from any other region. Loan
applications also appeared to be higher from students studying subjects that
were less clearly linked to professional qualifications or to courses that
traditionally may have led to the potential for higher earnings.
Concern about debt was evident, with nearly one-quarter of all students
expressing worries about repaying existing or future loans. Nonetheless,
there was an indication that many students were already considering
strategies for paying back tuition fee loans, for instance; those who expressed
most confidence in being able to do so, were those with the best level of
understanding of current financial mechanisms for students. This suggests a
need to ensure that clear and easily accessible information on tuition fee and
student loans is made available to all potential applicants to English HEIs and
that the criteria for accessing it (and the means by which it needs to be paid
back) are open and transparent. Comments from some students also suggest
a need for a speedier response to queries, both prior to applications and
following their submission.
31
4. Future Plans
Data from the HESA destination study (31% of whom were from non-UK EU
backgrounds) indicates that, within six months of completing their degree,
46% of new graduates were in full-time paid work, with a further four per cent
in part-time paid work and two per cent in voluntary unpaid work. Over onequarter of the respondents (27%) to the 2005/06 survey were pursuing further
studies while nine per cent were combining work and study.
4.1
Destination (those in full-time study were more than three times as likely
to stay in the UK as those in full-time work, while those both working and
studying were more than one and a half times as likely to stay as those in
full-time work. By contrast, those in part-time work or in voluntary work
were less likely to stay than those in full-time work.)
Location of degree study (students from London HEIs were more likely
to remain in the UK than those who had studied elsewhere in the country)
32
Those who had studied courses in the STEM subjects (including physical
and biological sciences, medicine and related subjects, maths,
engineering, computer sciences and agriculture), in creative arts,
languages, historical and philosophical studies, architecture. social
studies and mass communication were more likely to stay in the UK than
those studying other subjects (such as business studies, education and
veterinary science) while those studying law or combined degree courses
were less likely to stay in the UK than any those following any other
course (see Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1
100
90
80
Business and
Administration
70
60
50
40
30
Mathematics
Social studies
Law
Historical studies
Physical sciences
Creative
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Those who had studied in post-1992 HEIs rather than in pre-1992 HEIs.
Based on the known destination data over the last three years, it was possible
to calculate, from the final logistic model, the probability of any one student
staying in the UK. A male student from one of the founder countries, for
example, studying a two to three year degree course in business
administration in a London HEI and moving on to full-time work, would have a
40% probability of staying in the UK (see Figure 4.2). Had that male student
been studying medicine, the probability of his staying in the UK would be
much greater, at 70% (see probability line on Figure 4.2). For an Eastern
European female who had studied medicine, the probability of staying in the
UK would be 76%; this probability would be 90% if the post-graduation
33
destination was further study rather than full-time work. It should be noted of
course, that the actual numbers of Eastern European female medical
students is very small, so that the calculated probability should be treated as
illustrative rather than predictive.
Figure 4.2
FT Study
Law
Eastern EU
Engineer
Voluntary Work
< 1 Year of Stdy
60
50
40
30
20
Probability line
for male from
founder country
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4.2
36
37
A sixth outcome, unemployment, was considered, but removed from the final model as
the numbers of unemployed students within different subject groups were so small that
the model could not converge.
The original intention had been use the entire HESA dataset for all UK and non-UK
European students for whom destinations were known. The computer power needed to
run this analysis was greater than that which was available and so the decision was made
to take a random sample of UK students. Given the large size of the sample (over 38,000
in each set), one-to-one matching at student level was not deemed necessary.
34
The analysis suggested that, for non-UK EU students, the most significant
factors associated with entry into full-time work (rather than any of the other
destination outcomes) after completion of a higher education course were age
(older students were more likely to enter the workforce than follow any other
route), having attended a post-1992 rather than pre-1992 university and
following a course in medicine or dentistry. Students who had followed a full
three- or four-year course and those who had followed a short course (less
than one year of full-time study) were also more likely to be associated with
entry into full-time work. There was no apparent association between full-time
employment and country of origin; young people from UK and non-UK EU
backgrounds were as likely to enter full-time work, when all other background
factors were taken into account.
By contrast, and in comparison with graduates from the UK, graduates from
all over Europe (whether founder nations, or from Western or Eastern
European, Baltic State or late accession countries) were more strongly
associated with entry into further study than transfer into part-time or
voluntary work (see Figure 4.3). This was also true for those non-UK EU
students who stayed in the UK (those who had stayed in the UK were
negatively associated with part-time or voluntary work and with taking up
work-study opportunities). Taking part in further study was also strongly
associated with graduates from maths, physics, languages, law, historical
studies and social sciences courses. It should be noted, however, that there
was no significant difference between entry into full-time study and part-time
work for language and combined degree graduates, while both law and
combined degree graduates were as likely to be associated with work-study
programmes as with full-time study.
Graduates from architecture, creative arts and education courses, by
contrast, were negatively associated with full-time study, though the creative
arts graduates were equally associated with part-time work and with voluntary
work. Education graduates and those who had followed mass
communications and documentation courses were positively associated with
part-time employment. Those who had studied in London universities were
positively associated with voluntary work, but negatively associated with fulltime study.
35
Figure 4.3
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Eastern EU
20
Founder EU
Western EU
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4.3
36
that they were thinking about working in Eastern Europe or the Baltic States,
though all 26 EU countries were mentioned at least once.
Just under half of the 2,136 undergraduates believed that they would still be
in England six months after completing their current course, whether
undertaking post-graduate studies (22% of all respondents), in a full-time
career post (18%) or in part-time or temporary work (two per cent); a further
six per cent thought they would still be in England but were uncertain what
they might be doing. The anticipated situation two years after the completion
of their undergraduate courses suggested that over one-third (35%), believed
they would still be in England, although the balance was more towards work
(21% suggested they would be in full-time career job) with fewer (13%)
thinking they would be pursuing their studies in England.
4.4
37
realistic for those anticipating a career in England. Within two years, those
who provided a forecast suggested that they would be earning a mean of
30,625. Again the range was from less than 2000 to over 50,000, but the
mode was broader and extended between 24,001 and 30,000.
4.5
In summary
Most students in the survey indicated that they had a preferred career area,
although the extent to which they were able to predict potential earnings
varied. Around half anticipated staying in England, with a significant
proportion suggesting that they would be undertaking a post-graduate course
here. The indications from the HESA data are that the probability of a non-UK
EU student staying in England to take part in further full-time study is indeed
greater than that of their remaining to work (whether full- or part-time),
particularly for those studying maths, physics, languages, law, historical
studies and social sciences courses. Older students, by contrast, and those
studying medicine or dentistry were more strongly associated with entry into
full-time work. Nonetheless, making longer-term predictions on the basis of
current data is problematic, particularly in relation to students from Eastern
Europe, about whose post-graduate behaviour little is yet known.
38
5. Implications
5.1
Provision of Courses
Over the last four years, there has been a notable shift in the balance of nonUK EU students coming to England. Across all such countries, there has
been a decline in both the overall numbers and the proportion of students
from founder nations (from 38% to 35%) and other western non-founder
nations (from 61% to 48%) and a growth in the numbers and the proportion of
young people from the Baltic States, Eastern Europe and late accession
countries (from two per cent to 17%). At the same time there has also been a
shift in the courses being followed by non-UK EU undergraduates; a shift that
has not been consistent across all 26 non-UK EU countries. While business
and administration studies, for instance, appeared to be both the largest (and
fastest-growing) course, the proportion of applicants for such places declined
amongst the seven non-UK non-founder nations. The proportion of entrants to
most STEM subjects (other than those related to medicine or biology), law
and languages, have, in contrast, seen a marked decline. Accompanying
these shifts, there has also been a change in the pattern of applications, with
post-1992 universities appearing to benefit most from the arrival of the
students from the Eastern European countries, Baltic States and the late
accession countries, but losing favour amongst other non-founder EU nations.
These changes provide a significant challenge to HEIs in their longer-term
planning. To what extent can one anticipate that existing patterns of non-UK
EU student recruitment will persist, particularly in relation to the variations
seen between students from founder, Western and Eastern European
countries? Will business and administration remain a growth area? Amongst
the survey respondents, a key factor in electing to come to an English HEI
appeared to be one that was instrumental - the prospect the course afforded
for a future career. Far fewer respondents said that they had based their
decision on the lack of a particular course in their home country, a preference
for a particular assessment strategy or the length of the course. Will English
universities continue to be able to capitalise on potential career premiums and
what steps do they need to take (if any) to ensure that the courses that they
are offering maintain this advantage?
39
5.2
Post-graduate recruitment
Over the four years from 2002/03 to 2005/06, non-UK EU students, following
the completion of their degree courses, were more likely to move on to fulltime post-graduate courses or to enter full-time work (whether in England or
elsewhere) than to enter part-time or voluntary positions. Entry to postgraduate courses in England appears to have been significantly more likely
amongst those non-UK EU students following courses in maths, physics and
languages (subjects that have declined in relative popularity amongst non-UK
EU undergraduate entrants) or those following courses in historical and social
studies (areas that have seen some increase in take-up). Although business
studies and administration courses have dominated undergraduate entry for
non-UK EU students for a number of years, there was a far higher probability
that students following those courses would either not remain in England, or,
if they stayed in the country, would not enter post-graduate study.
The question that arises is whether or not there will be any changes in the
pattern of non-UK EU recruitment to post-graduate courses in the future. At
present, the historical picture is dominated by the post-graduate behaviour of
non-UK EU students from the founder and western non-founder countries.
With increasing numbers of students from the Eastern European, Baltic State
and late accession countries, it is possible that the current destination pattern
may change. In the past, there was a high probability that such students
would stay in England (or at least in the UK), having completed their first
degree, and that they would continue into higher education in the first
instance. The growing proportion of business studies and administration
students amongst the students from the Eastern European, Baltic State and
late accession countries may challenge that. Will there be a continued growth
in progression to higher education from non-UK EU students, or will there be
a shift towards young people taking up full-time employment opportunities?
Will the apparent lessening popularity of the STEM subjects amongst non-UK
EU recruitment (other than those related to medicine or biology, which are
significantly related to the take-up of full-time employment) herald a move
away from postgraduate recruitment amongst non-UK EU students? Nearly
one-third of the survey respondents envisaged taking up a course of full-time
study following graduation. Will this translate into reality, and for which subject
areas?
40
5.3
5.4
41
who expressed most confidence in being able to do so, were those with the
best level of understanding of current financial mechanisms for students.
How best should tuition fee loans be marketed to potential students in non-UK
EU countries? What strategies have proved effective and what lessons can
be learnt about the effectiveness of marketing from those students who have
applied for loans (whether or not they received them)?
42
Appendix 1
HESA data was used to help define the sample of institutions from which the
EU students would be recruited to take part in the survey. In 2004/05, there
was an estimated total of around 45,000 undergraduates across the 132
English HEIs. Clearly, the distribution of students from different countries is
not entirely random, while the pattern of recruitment from some countries
(particularly the new accession countries) is not yet established. It is
recognised, too, that a number of institutions (four in 2004/05) do not recruit
undergraduates, while others (a further four institutions in 2004/05) have no
significant history of recruiting EU students at this level.
In order to meet the aims of the research, therefore, the research team
carried out power calculations to estimate the number of undergraduate
responses that would be required and the number of HEIs, therefore, that
would need to be recruited to the study. In order to provide an EU-wide
approximation of views, attitudes and plans (that is, for the estimate of
percentages to be correct to within 5% at least 95% of the time), initial
calculations suggested a minimum of 1,040 responses would need to be
achieved. In order to provide a similar approximation by country, it was
calculated that 3,800 achieved responses would be required.
Previous experience of surveys in this field suggested that the anticipated
response rate to the study would be in the order of 10%, giving a mean of 35
to 40 responses per institution. For an EU-wide approximation, therefore, at
least 26 HEIs would need to be recruited, but a higher number (95 HEIs)
would need to be recruited in order to give a country-level approximation.
Instead, it was decided to focus on a regionally-based analysis (recruiting
around 60 HEIs), since the total number of students coming to English HEIs
from some countries was low and far fewer than would be needed to provide
a reliable estimate of the views of undergraduates from that country. Seven of
the 26 EU countries in 2005/06 contributed fewer than 500 students each, for
instance, while fewer than 50 students, in each case, came from Romania
and Bulgaria.
In the first instance, 132 institutions and a short list of 95 was compiled for
specific targeting. In total 73 HEIs were recruited, of whom 67 eventually took
part in the study.
43
Appendix 2
Type
Country
Founder states
Non-founder Western
states
Denmark, Ireland, UK
1981
Greece
1986
Portugal, Spain
1995
2004
2007
Bulgaria, Romania
44
Appendix 3
Table 1
Tables
Nationality of respondents
Nationality
Austrian
Belgium
Bulgarian
Cypriot
Czech
Danish
Dutch
Estonian
Finnish
French
German
Greek
Hungarian
Irish
Italian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Luxembourgish
Maltese
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Slovakian
Slovenian
Spanish
Swedish
Other
No response
N=
In survey
%
1
2
<1
7
2
2
3
1
4
10
15
8
3
6
4
2
4
1
<1
9
3
<1
2
<1
4
5
3
1
30
35
7
162
42
34
54
26
92
211
326
168
54
130
83
39
96
11
4
188
70
8
42
4
94
102
57
19
2,188
45
Deleted from
survey
%
1
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
3
5
5
2
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
1
60
5
1
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
3
5
5
2
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
1
65
5
109
Table 2
Gender of respondents
In survey
Gender
Female
Male
No response
N=
%
58
37
5
Deleted from
survey
%
59
34
7
2,188
109
46
Table 3
Country of origin
Country
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
England*
Netherlands
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Republic of Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Northern Ireland*
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Scotland*
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Wales*
Other country
No response
N=
In survey
%
Deleted from
survey
%
1
3
<1
8
2
2
8
2
1
3.
9
14
7
3
5
3
2
4
1
<1
<1
7
3
<1
<1
2
<1
4
4
<1
3
1
1
4
0
5
1
0
23
5
1
3
13
13
2
0
6
1
0
2
2
0
1
5
1
0
1
0
0
4
2
0
6
2
2,188
109
47
Table 4
Number of years
In survey
%
Deleted from
survey
%
3 years or more
Less than 3 years
No response
N=
53
36
10
85
7
7
174
27
Table 5
Academic year
2002 - 2003
2003 - 2004
2004 - 2005
2005 - 2006
2006 - 2007
No response
N=
<1
6
20
28
43
2
2,188
Table 6
Academic year
2006 - 2007
2007 - 2008
2008 - 2009
2009 - 2010
2010 - 2011
2011 or later
No response
N=
26
27
32
11
2
<1
2
2,188
48
Table 7
Subject area
1
3
9
26
6
8
1
8
4
8
4
4
2
3
5
15
4
<1
1
<1
<1
2,188
Table 8
Mode
Full-time
Part-time
Distance learning
Intensive/short course
Executive education
No response
N=
98
2
1
<1
<1
0
2,188
49
The following tables include only those respondents who indicated that they
were currently in full-time study.
Table 9
Obtained a HE qualification?
2
2
16
79
1
2,136
Table 10
Main reasons
60
More than one answer could be put forward so percentages do not sum to 100
A total of 2,119 respondents gave at least one response to this question.
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
50
48
44
32
30
25
24
18
14
14
13
10
8
7
1
2,136
Table 11
Countries
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Northern Ireland
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
USA
Wales
Other
No response to this question
N=
17
3
5
13
2
2
3
1
3
15
16
5
1
7
9
<1
1
1
1
7
5
3
3
2
2
9
1
<1
13
7
7
40
5
3
23
2,136
More than one answer could be put forward so percentages do not sum to 100
A total of 1,655 respondents gave at least one response to this question.
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
51
Table 12
Reasons
6
11
1
14
8
24
13
19
More than one answer could be put forward so percentages do not sum to 100
A total of 2,090 respondents gave at least one response to this question.
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
52
24
15
18
17
23
21
46
20
49
23
16
6
20
23
9
41
23
15
5
13
5
2
2,136
Table 13
Expectations
I
expected
this
I did not
expect
this
No
response
I was not
sure (if
this
would be
provided)
4
87
87
72
10
10
71
11
61
17
14
55
22
15
54
22
15
53
24
15
48
28
15
47
29
15
32
38
21
17
58
17
53
Table 14
Very
importa
nt
Importa
nt
Neither
important
nor
unimport
ant
Not
importa
nt
Not at
all
importa
nt
No
respon
se
48
34
43
38
36
44
25
32
22
23
45
17
20
27
28
18
39
23
18
34
25
17
35
20
10
15
35
36
14
23
27
13
14
19
28
16
21
20
24
37
54
Table 15
Views
True
False
Not
sure
No
response
28
42
19
11
76
11
17
38
34
11
26
24
39
11
19
22
47
12
39
45
12
24
13
51
12
N = 2,136
A series of single response items
Due to rounding, percentages may not always sum to 100
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
55
Table 16
Part-time job
26
Full-time job
Family
60
18
6
<1
Dependants Allowance
Own savings
27
Other
13
N=
2,136
More than one answer could be put forward so percentages do not sum to 100
A total of 1,859 respondents gave at least one response to this question.
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
Table 17
Yes
77
No
10
No response
13
N=
2,136
56
Table 18
10
Yes, in England
15
Yes, in both
No
44
Not sure
13
No response
13
N=
2,136
Table 19
Level of overdraft
768.36
Min
Max
16000
Number
of
233
Table 20
Credit card
23
Yes, in England
14
Yes, in both
11
No
39
No response
13
N=
2,136
57
Table 21
Yes, always
59
20
No
19
No response
N=
1,033
Table 22
No debt anticipated
32
Up to 2,000
2,001 - 5,000
5,001 - 10,000
12
10,001 - 15,000
15,001 - 20,000
20,001 - 25,000
Dont know
11
No response
13
N=
2,136
58
Table 23
Views
True for
me
Not sure
Not
true for
me
No
respons
e
31
11
39
20
32
23
24
21
48
17
17
18
40
14
27
20
27
15
38
20
N = 2,136
A series of single response items
Due to rounding, percentages may not always sum to 100
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
Table 24
Number of hours
1 to 10
18
11 to 15
15
16 to 20
24
21 to 30
25
31 to 40
Over 40
No response
11
N=
628
59
Table 25
Amount paid
4 or less
Between 4 and 5
11
29
19
Between 6 and 7
16
Between 7 and 8
Between 8 and 9
Between 9 and 10
Over 10
No response
N=
628
Table 26
Yes
31
No
59
No response
11
N=
2,136
60
Table 27
Reasons
I would not have been able to do the course without the loan
72
36
25
14
12
My friends suggested it
Other
N=
651
More than one answer could be put forward so percentages do not sum to 100
A filter question: all those who indicated that they had applied for a tuition fee loan
A total of 638 respondents gave at least one response to this question.
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
Table 28
Yes
82
No
16
No response
N=
651
Table 29
Amount owed
Mean
3092
Min
100
61
Max
10000
Number
478
Table 30
Yes
10
No
78
No response
12
N=
2,136
Table 31
Yes
41
No
58
No response
N=
217
Table 32
Amount owed
3404
Min
500
Max
Number
10000
76
Table 33
Reasons
47
Other
40
14
N=
103
More than one answer could be put forward so percentages do not sum to 100
An open-ended, multiple response question
A total of 89 respondents gave at least one response to this question.
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
62
Table 34
Reasons
47
33
24
16
10
The information I was given about the loan was too confusing
10
N=
1250
More than one answer could be put forward so percentages do not sum to 100
A filter question: all those who indicated that they had not applied for a tuition fee loan
A total of 1,201 respondents gave at least one response to this question.
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
Table 35
Loans
Methods of repayment
35
44
No response
14
N=
2,136
63
Table 36a
This
would
be fair
Im not
sure
This
would
not be
fair
No
respons
e
35
33
17
15
38
32
15
15
23
34
28
15
29
33
23
15
28
54
15
Table 36b
15
36
16
Im not sure
19
No response
14
N=
2,136
64
Table 37
Future plans
21
Full time career job not in England (but not in my home country)
20
International travel
Voluntary work
<1
13
19
Other
No response
N=
2,136
65
Table 38
Future plans
18
3
6
6
2
66
1
1
1
22
5
5
6
3
10
4
9
2,136
Table 39
Countries
%
17
4
6
1
13
2
2
4
1
3
14
12
5
1
6
9
<1
1
2
1
7
8
2
4
1
2
1
6
1
1
14
7
8
32
3
7
32
2,136
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Northern Ireland
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Scotland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
USA
Wales
Other
No response to this question
N=
More than one answer could be put forward so percentages do not sum to 100
A total of 1,444 respondents gave at least one response to this question.
Source: NFER/Hobsons Survey of non-UK EU Students 2007
67
Table 40
Career area
54
Construction
Education
10
Financial Intermediation
11
Fishing
<1
Manufacturing
29
16
<1
I dont know
Other (uncodeable)
No Response
11
N=
2,136
68
Table 41
Expected salary
<2000
2001 to 5000
5001 to 9000
9001 to 12000
12001 to 15000
15001 to 18000
18001 to 21000
10
21001 to 24000
24001 to 27000
27001 to 30000
30001 to 35000
35001 to 40000
40001 to 50000
<1
>50000
No response
58
N=
2,136
69
Table 42
Expected salary
<2000
2001 to 5000
5001 to 9000
9001 to 12000
12001 to 15000
15001 to 18000
18001 to 21000
21001 to 24000
24001 to 27000
27001 to 30000
30001 to 35000
35001 to 40000
40001 to 50000
>50000
No response
64
N=
2,136
70
Appendix 4
Country
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Irish Republic
Italy
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sweden
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Total
2002/03
Count
Col %
1110
1.40
1166
1.48
20
0.03
53
0.07
7
1730
1937
9607
11206
25316
18
6510
5897
288
7
2075
49
2193
18
6243
3550
4
6
4
3
3
79020
0.01
2.19
2.45
12.16
14.18
32.04
0.02
8.24
7.46
0.36
0.01
2.63
0.06
2.78
0.02
7.90
4.49
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
100
Count
1193
1157
31
60
16
1658
1798
9954
10974
22391
24
7067
5632
292
10
1937
59
2247
22
6034
3269
3
6
5
2
3
75844
2003/04
Col % %change
1.57
7
1.53
-1
0.04
55
0.08
13
0.02
2.19
2.37
13.12
14.47
29.52
0.03
9.32
7.43
0.39
0.01
2.55
0.08
2.96
0.03
7.96
4.31
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
100
129
-4
-7
4
-2
-12
33
9
-4
1
43
-7
20
2
22
-3
-8
-25
0
25
-33
0
Count
1305
1222
32
4999
2004/05
Col %
%change
1.48
9
1.38
6
0.04
3
5.66
8232
Count
1307
1287
38
6495
2005/06
Col % %change
1.41
0
1.39
5
0.04
19
7.01
30
overall change
%
18
10
90
12155 increase
overall % change
%
0
-6
62
10354 increase
784
1626
1679
10173
11769
20529
556
9532
5781
326
807
2057
2215
2430
32
5815
3214
164
234
428
194
369
88272
0.89
1.84
1.90
11.52
13.33
23.26
0.63
10.80
6.55
0.37
0.91
2.33
2.51
2.75
0.04
6.59
3.64
0.19
0.27
0.48
0.22
0.42
100
994
1565
1710
10813
12324
18760
753
9417
5973
326
960
2169
3839
2496
27
5582
3170
322
466
911
289
634
92627
1.07
1.69
1.85
11.67
13.30
20.25
0.81
10.17
6.45
0.35
1.04
2.34
4.14
2.69
0.03
6.03
3.42
0.35
0.50
0.98
0.31
0.68
100
14100
-10
-12
13
10
-26
4083
45
1
13
13614
5
7735
14
50
-11
-11
7950
7667
22675
9533
21033
12014
-23
-25
-4
-6
-37
3469
23
-14
-3
11600
-11
6584
-3
28
-24
-24
6767
6526
19329
8118
17929
4800
-2
-7
2
7
-8
2217
35
3
12
7970
6
3654
8
45
-4
-2
5367
3800
8460
9600
12200
71
27
-4
2
6
5
-9
35
-1
3
0
19
5
73
3
-16
-4
-1
96
99
113
49
72
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
increase
Appendix 5
67 institutions both agreed to participate and confirmed that they had sent
a bulk invitation e-mail to their non-UK EU students.
15 institutions said they would not participate and 7 institutions either did
not respond or would not provide a definitive answer concerning
participation.
72
www.dius.gov.uk/research
Published by the Department for Innovation,
Universities and Skills