UK

Education + Training

ISSN: 0040-0912

Article publication date: 16 March 2010

261

Citation

(2010), "UK", Education + Training, Vol. 52 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/et.2010.00452bab.003

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2010, Emerald Group Publishing Limited


UK

Article Type: Research news From: Education + Training, Volume 52, Issue 2

Employers can enjoy a five-fold return on investment from recruiting graduates, new research reveals.

According to a study by Anthony Hesketh of Lancaster University Management School as part of the Backing Young Britain Campaign, within three years of launching a mid-sized graduate recruitment programme, employers benefitted from a £5.30 return for every £1 invested. The Lancaster University research found graduates pay for themselves 20 months from their start date and by their third year, mid-sized graduate recruitment and training programmes – those which involve the hiring of 170 graduates – generate a £5.30 return for every £1 invested.

The formula identifies the ratio between the cost of investment in a graduate and how much a graduate “earns” for a business. The findings challenge the decision by some businesses to stop graduate recruitment schemes or not hire at all due to their initial costs. Anthony Hesketh, who conducted the research, said: “We know that in these tough economic conditions businesses are considering the value of graduate recruitment, however they remain a vital source of future capability for organisations. The report clearly reveals that while it is a front-loaded investment, businesses do enjoy substantial returns from the 20-month mark and overall find themselves at a financial advantage from working with graduates.”

The research as been backed by professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which recruited 1,000 graduates this year and plans to hire a further 1,000 in 2010. Carl Gilleard, chief executive of the Association of Graduate Recruiters, said: “Many of our members continue to engage in graduate recruitment – even during this tough economic climate. Past experience tells us that businesses that close their graduate talent pipeline, even for a short period, find themselves at a commercial disadvantage when the upturn comes as they do not have the talent in place to respond quickly to improved market conditions.”

Employers warned to reconsider graduate recruitment strategy as student behaviour evolves

Employers have been warned to reconsider their graduate recruitment strategies as new research reclassifies universities. According to a survey by the Higher Education Careers Services Unit (HECSU) a growing number of top students in the UK are choosing “new” universities over Russell Group institutions, including Oxford and Cambridge, basing their decisions on course reputation rather than university name.

Findings from stages one and two of HECSU’s Futuretrack*, a longitudinal study that surveyed almost 50,000 students, revealed that in some subjects, such as law, high achieving students are just as likely to be studying at a “new” university as a Russell group institution. (Russell group institutions include Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff.)

The study highlighted current university ranking systems do not always closely align with the experiences and qualifications of applicants. In response, HECSU’s research team at the University of Warwick, where the study was undertaken, has generated a new ranking system based on access tariff points.

Typically, the institutions that require the highest tariff scores are those that students find the most difficult to get an offer of a place and are perceived to attract the brightest students. Institutions in the new classification system differ from the well-known categories (Russell Group, Pre-92, Post-92, and Other) in the following ways:

  • Highest Tariff Group – contains all but three Russell Group universities, five universities previously classified as “other old universities”, four medical schools, a veterinary school and an institute focussed on languages.

  • High Tariff Group – contains the remaining three Russell Group universities, all except four of the remaining “other old universities”, four “new universities”, a university that was not a former polytechnic, and three specialist institutions.

  • Medium Tariff Group – includes four “old universities”, 25 “new universities” and ten new universities that were not polytechnics.

  • Lower Tariff Group – contains eight “new universities”, 13 new universities that had not been polytechnics, five former HE colleges and ten other HEIs, mainly University Colleges.

Jane Artess, director of research at HECSU calls for employers to revaluate where they seek student talent. She said: “It is known that many students choose where to study based on departmental or course reputation as much as university but, Futuretrack shows clearly where and why students with very high points enter “new” universities and specialist higher education institutions as well as those places usually associated with top grades. Also, many high achievers choose or need to study close to home, so find themselves opting for ‘lower tariff’ universities rather than aiming for more prestigious ones. This strongly opposes current views by many employers that they can only find exceptional candidates from the Russell Group. This simply isn’t the case. Employers should try and find out about the departments and courses they are interested in; the net should be cast much wider.”

Generation Z – a new entrepreneurial breed of graduates

Research from the Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning at Durham University indicates we are witnessing a new generation of highly-geared graduates who are far better equipped to deal with the changing business landscape than their predecessors. Involving over 2,500 students the research indicates a strong focus on achieving, a desire to see things through and an imaginative use of knowledge emerged as the top three traits that students thought would help them to succeed. Almost half of those surveyed (45 per cent) have a family member who runs their own business. These role models emerge as a key influence on the experiences and perceptions of those surveyed.

Four per cent are even already running their own businesses. If the right job is not available 17 per cent want to be their own bosses and either start their own business or become self-employed following graduation.

All the same, I believe that more action is required by all our universities to redesign the student learning experience to ensure graduates are not just more employable but also more entrepreneurially minded. Equally, graduates need to give consideration to what they can offer employers large or small, private or public, commercial or charitable.

Employers also have a shared responsibility and important role to play in helping to develop more employable graduates. They can offer more on campus skills sessions, visiting lectureships, business case studies and work experience placements in the UK and internationally.

Moving forward, the issue of graduate entrepreneurship needs to be taken beyond a narrow focus upon business start-up into the wider field of human resource development with a future career and “life-world” focus. These skills will help students to deal better with today’s more fluid organisational structures and career complexity.

Characteristics of Gen Z around enterprise and innovation:

  • Government investment in enterprise development in secondary education means that graduates are equipped with the right entrepreneurial skills and attitudes.

  • Graduates are innovative, creative, have commercial awareness, take the initiative – music to the ears of employers.

  • Greater flexibility – prepared to move from full-time to freelance or start their own business depending on market conditions. Students identified a need for universities to play a greater role in supporting enterprise development including financial support for start-ups.

  • Entrepreneurism is in their blood. Nearly one in two students surveyed said a family member that had run their own business.

Characteristics of Gen Y on enterprise and innovation:

  • Unlikely to have benefited from the £60 million a year the Government starting investing in 2005 and the statutory requirement for enterprise capability.

  • Source of frustration for employers around focus, motivation and engagement.

  • Have been less well prepared than Gen Z for a turbulent job market and more complex and uncertain career paths.

  • Unlikely to have benefited from such an entrepreneurial environment when growing up.

Mapping the needs of a generation

Emerging findings from a major three-year research study into the information-seeking behaviour of doctoral students have highlighted the need for far greater understanding of the generation born between 1982 and 1994 – commonly dubbed Generation Y. Researchers of Tomorrow was commissioned by the British Library and JISC to establish a benchmark for research behaviour, against which future generations can be measured – and also to provide guidance for librarians and information specialists on how best to meet the research needs of Generation Y scholars.

Earlier this year 70 full-time doctoral students at UK colleges and universities were recruited for a longitudinal study of their research habits during the course of the next three years. The study will investigate their research habits in digital and physical environments, as well as their use of resources both off- and online.

The longitudinal study will be supported by a number of surveys to establish the wider context of the doctoral research landscape. The first of these surveys has just been completed; it surveyed a representative sample of all doctoral students in the UK and yielded a number of significant interim findings:

  • Information format. Three quarters of Generation Y students – more than those in any other age group – found the information they sought in an e-journal article.

  • Emergent technology. Only a small proportion of respondents (10-30 per cent) in any age group say they use ‘emergent technology’ – such as wikis, virtual research environments, social networking and other Web 2.0 applications – in their research, Of those that do use them, more generally find them useful in their research than not.

  • Help and advice. Fewer Generation Y students than other age groups say they regularly use library staff support to find research resources (11 per cent of Generation Y compared to an average of 17 per cent for other age groups), or take advice from subject specialist librarians (4 per cent compared to 9 per cent average). More Generation Y respondents (46 per cent) than any other age group turn to their fellow students and/or supervisors for support in using emergent technologies.

  • Location of work. Compared to other age groups, more Generation Y researchers work from a dedicated or shared office space (or laboratory or studio) (40 per cent), than work from their own home (39 per cent).

The study is being conducted by Education for Change, in association with The Research Partnership, and builds on the study by CIBER of the “Google Generation”, which was published by the British Library and JISC in January 2008. See: www.researchersoftomorrow.net

Science and technology in school and university

More students than ever before have been accepted onto science and engineering related degree courses according to the University and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). Science is also now the most popular subject at school according to a new poll of children aged five to 18. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Chief Executive Dave Delpy has welcomed the news and says this strengthens the case for supporting our future scientists and engineers.

Figures from UCAS for admissions show the number of students accepted onto engineering related degree courses is up 17.3 per cent since 2008. This trend is repeated for physical sciences related subjects where the number is up 9.7 per cent. Applications in both these areas have been rising steadily for the last five years and seem set to continue.

A poll conducted on behalf of the Young Scientist Centre has shown that more children are planning to opt for a science related subject at GCSE and A-Level and thereafter a career in science. As surprising as it may sound, science is now the most popular subject at school and this surely means that UCAS can expect even more degree applications in these areas in the years to come.

The survey of 2,000 children aged between five and 18 was conducted by online market research site www.onepoll.com between three and 11 September 2009, with the demographic breakdowns being representative of the UK population.

However, according to the Policy Exchange, the centre-right “think-tank, such data is potentially misleading. They acknowledge that at first glance science subjects appear to be thriving at university level. And that despite a slowdown in recent years, the number of students enrolled on Science Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) courses has grown (379,000 to 515,000) in just over a decade. But if traditional STEM subjects are examined it is clear that only a handful have seen any substantial change in popularity. Over the past decade the number of students studying Medicine has increased dramatically (+14,142) and Dentistry has also seen a notable rise (+2,741). Broad groupings of undergraduate courses such as Mathematical Sciences and Computer Sciences have also seen healthy gains. But the number enrolled in Biology, Chemistry and Physics has barely changed in this period.

Biology had 18,081 students in 1997 and 18,405 in 2008, and Physics had 9,990 students in 1997 and 10,145 in 2008. The number studying Chemistry has in fact fallen – from 13,923 students in 1997 to 12,515 in 2008. Meanwhile, Engineering and Technology subjects have dropped from 90,930 in 1997 to 80,425 in 2008.

Their analysis of the data also suggests that over the last ten years reveals that the dramatic increase in science numbers has been driven partly by the growth of new subjects, and partly by a clever manipulation of what counts as science. There have been numerous changes to the way that subjects are categorised within the enrolment data. The list of subjects classified as “science” by the Government has become much broader, and now includes “Nutrition and Complementary Medicine”, “Geography Studies”, “Physical Geographical Sciences”, “Sport Science” and “Nursing” among others.

Secondary school pupils still considering a career in engineering

Survey results from independent educational charity, The Smallpeice Trust, have revealed that 85 per cent of 11-18 year olds are strongly interested in engineering and science subjects. Pupils questioned revealed that they would consider taking a job in engineering, with 51 per cent stating they were most interested in mechanical engineering. To help foster this high interest in engineering sector, The Smallpeice Trust has launched a new range of online games which are designed in line with the national curriculum and are aimed at sparking an interest in engineering for pupils aged 11+. These web-based games have previously been trialled at four schools, and are now being rolled-out nationwide. They have an unusual feature in that they are designed to be played on-line by a team of players. The three games provide the opportunity to gain an insight into science and engineering. Bio-domes, colour-matching and bridge-building demonstrate how engineering can be used to solve real-life problems.

Identifying effective practice in raising young people’s aspirations

Identifying Effective Practice in Raising Young People’s Aspirations provides an evidence base to inform future efforts in raising young people’s aspirations. The focus of the study is on England since 2005 and those strategies, interventions and practices that have proved to work most effectively in terms of achieving the engagement/re-engagement of young people with learning, and the progression of those already engaged.

The research examined the various stages in the learner journey and highlights the effective practice at each stage that can lead to raising young people’s aspirations. The report provides a detailed literature review of effective practice in raising the aspirations of young people, together with six case study reports, which showcase innovative approaches, involving a wide range of partners working with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, including young parents, young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) and those in care. The following is an extended extract from the report’s “Conclusions”:

Firstly it is important to take a step back and ask what we mean by raising aspirations and why it is important. The Cabinet Office report (2008) defines them as being about: inspiration, information, self-esteem and self-efficacy. It also argues that aspirations are complex and multi-dimensional and distinguishes educational aspirations from broader aspirations. It states that parents/carers and children alike tend to think holistically about their futures in terms of “being happy” and that disadvantaged young people do not have fundamentally different aspirations from their more advantaged peers. However the report, citing a range of other studies, also highlights that there is a difference between what people can hope to achieve and what they can expect to achieve, particularly with respect to the relative deprivation of the locality in which they reside and their individual capabilities.The case studies show how approaches to raising aspirations must consider the broader socio-economic environment in which they are set, and the importance of offering support at different levels, times and settings to be effective for individuals with different needs and aptitudes. Both the primary and secondary evidence collected showed how many aspects of the ‘process’ of learning can inherently contribute to the raising of individual aspiration – and can play a dual role in:

  • The raising of individual aspirations – such as through exposure to new opportunities, exploring possibilities, exposing to others beyond individual peer groups; and

  • Providing a mechanism to support their realisation – such as through the achievement of qualifications, enhancing individual employability, and supporting progress towards labour market re-integration.

The study also showed that while specific interventions to raise aspirations can be effective (notably with those whose aspirations and ambitions are particularly low), the raising of aspirations more broadly should not be seen as discrete activities but as an essential component of all interactions with young people around the process of learning. While many other factors can influence individual aspiration levels, learning can play a key role - and importantly one which cannot begin too early or end too soon.

Recommendations from the research include actions to be taken which lie beyond the LSC remit, but where the potential for influence exists around early years education, primary/secondary transition points and support for families more widely. The report argues that the challenge of raising aspirations for young people, NEET or otherwise, consequently demands that a more systematic, sustained and holistic approach is taken, including the use of partner expertise and the sharing of information between FE and schools, within which learning is a key vector for “self-improvement” in the broadest sense. “Raising aspirations is about changing young people’s attitudes, building their confidence, and increasing their self-awareness. It is also about ensuring that the support is there and that the learning systems are in place to stimulate and realise young people’s aspirations.”

The full report can be accessed at: http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/National/nat-raising_aspirations-re-24sep2009-v1-1.pdf

Related articles