A funny thing happened...

Accompanied not by a fanfare, but rather by a blare on a tinny toy trumpet, the Analyst is back.

And while he was away, it appears that some rather disconcerting things have happened in the economy and consequently, we are told, the graduate labour market. We’ll take a look at the media reports a little later as they are a series of unalloyed delights for aficionados of the unsubstantiated generalisation and unsupported assertion and we want to take our time over them.

Let us, instead, turn our attention to the recent, that excellent body tasked by DIUS to ‘give a greater voice to students on higher education courses’. There is much to reward the reader in this splendid report, so let the Analyst take you by the hand and guide you through the first section.

To ensure that the Forum ‘reflects the diversity of the undergraduate and postgraduate population’, the members are nominated by the NUS, the National Postgraduate Committee, the Mature Students Union, the Open University Students’ Association, Skill, or the British Council.

The Analyst is glad that the Forum is an appropriately diverse spectrum of that proportion of the student body who are politically active and well-connected. Some might note that there are no fewer than three current or former NUS Presidents on the Forum and feel that this was, perhaps, somewhat of an embarrassment of riches. The Analyst spurns this kind of cynicism.

Excitingly, the Forum sets its own agenda! And how gratifying to see IAG front and centre as it ought to be! And, we are not disappointed by the findings. They are both exciting and innovative. Well, not exactly innovative, and, I am afraid that we are disappointed by the findings, but we will get to that shortly.

The report starts by mentioning that there is ‘a lack of adequate information, advice and guidance (IAG) before going to university or college’, and also a lack of ‘IAG whilst studying or preparing to leave’. The Analyst notes that the panel seems to be a bit short of people who have actually left HE at any point, but is sure that does not compromise their ability to tell us about guidance in this area.

As the Forum tells us, despite this ‘lack of adequate information, advice and guidance’, there is a ‘plethora of information and advice mechanisms already available’. This is obviously confusing, so the Forum have made the brave decision to focus on IAG issues facing 14-19 year olds, an age group that at least one of the Forum had experienced as recently as a year ago.

One can only assume that DIUS could not get hold of any real 14-19 year olds to examine this issue, and the Forum have generously offered to fill in.

So, Forum, there appears to be both little advice and a great deal of it. What do you suggest?

Why, a ‘First Point Of Call’ IAG portal, that will ‘bring together the full range of factors that prospective students need to be aware of in order to make an informed decision about entry to higher education’.

Well, it’s vague, but it shows ambition.

What about the considerable existing provision? Well, let it not be said that the Forum have not heavily studied that, examined the relative merits and looked at what is good and what isn’t! Why, on Page 15, some of the significant existing, well-established data sources are mentioned for a full paragraph! There is even a brief mention of institution careers services, which I am sure pleases the good people of AGCAS.

Based on this expert testimony, the Forum inform organisations like UCAS, Connexions and Graduate Prospects that, although they are in many cases independent of Government influence, and have been working together for many years - having established working relationships based on clear delineation of responsibility and expertise - the Government should make them ‘employ a more joined up approach to ways of working and thinking’, they ‘undertake a joint review of their respective current online provision’, and that they ‘work together to identify who might be best placed to lead on the development of an overarching portal.’

The Analyst merely notes that some of the organisations concerned have received these suggestions with interest. It would appear that in the brave future world of the National Student Forum, there are only quangos. The Analyst, for one, welcomes our new quangocrat overlords.

But, Forum, now we that have proposed the development of a portal which contains all the information a prospective student might need (whatever that might be – the Forum are a little vague on that point, although it is clear that it should have information in ‘a variety of languages’, however many ‘a variety’ is), brought a number of previously-independent organisations under Government control, amalgamated them (and presumably disbanded the rest), and no doubt, in the words of Mary Poppins, done six impossible things before breakfast, how much has all of this cost the taxpayer?

'It is ‘relatively cost effective'.'

Excellent, Forum! But….one hesitates to mention this, but we don’t see any indication of how the Forum has drawn this conclusion. We need to know a little more, surely?

“We note that the IAG recommendations we present would necessitate considerable spending commitments from the Government. We note also that the agency responsible for developing the online portal has yet to be specified.”

Ah.

So, to recap. Forum, you would like a one-stop solution to everything that might be of interest of any prospective HE student both from the UK and overseas (although it is not specified exactly what might be in this portal), at all qualification levels, that duplicates the work of existing, well-established, often independent, organisations which employ literally hundreds of people to keep this information going, you’d like the Government to intervene in the work of these organisations even though they do not currently and have no remit to do so, you don’t know who will deliver it (or how long they have to do it) and you have no idea how much it will cost. Nevertheless, you’re sure that it will be ‘relatively cost effective’?

‘Relatively’ is such a useful word. It can mean almost anything.
One hopes for a positive outcome for this particular ‘relatively’. It is such an appealing word, with it’s aura of wide-eyed hopefulness. Sadly, the Treasury is not a body known for a genial tolerance of financial uncertainty (although some may differ). In the current economic climate, ‘relatively’ may mean something different to the Treasury than it does to the Forum. This ‘relatively’ may not end well. The Analyst fears for it.

Says chair Maeve Sherlock in the THES, 'These days it’s a big decision to decide to invest the time and money needed to come to university, so it’s really important to know not just what your course is called, but what it will involve'.

The Analyst is now worried by the spectre of students arriving at university not knowing what their courses are called, and all for the lack of a one-stop portal telling prospective students everything they need to know about university.

There is much to like about the National Student Forum report. It is true that guidance can be difficult to navigate if you lack the expertise to do it properly. There are sensible suggestions about loans for part time students, and it is good that students feel that they are given a voice.

But the IAG section betrays little to no understanding of current provision, developments in the sector or relationships between organisations, fails to consult the right people, or, where it has, shows little evidence of having listened to what they have to say. As a result, the report is vague, incoherent, unrealistic, and, unforgivably, spends a lot of money to tell us nothing that isn’t already extremely well known by organisations that already go to a great deal of trouble and expense to consult students to improve their provision. These organisations could have told the Forum that had the Forum consulted them.

It is not a good report on IAG. It is, unhappily, a bad report on IAG. This is all the more stark considering the very recent report on HE participation by the Sutton Trust -  Increasing Higher Education Participation Amongst Disadvantaged Young People and Schools in Poor Communities. This report includes a section on IAG for 16-19 year olds, featuring specific and sensible recommendations to improve a system which everyone agrees does not work as intended. The Sutton Trust cite the efforts of other organisations. They review the literature. Theirs is a good report.

Maeve Sherlock again. 'Although there is a huge amount of information out there, it is really hard to navigate your way through it'

The UK has over 150 universities, offering tens of thousands of courses to literally millions of students of hundreds of nationalities.

How big and complicated would a single portal need to be to include all of the information needed for any student wanting to study at university in the UK?

The Analyst can only wait with keen anticipation for the next phase of recommendations on IAG for current students. There is a tremendous infrastructure of information, advice and guidance in place for students in HE, a whole range of curricular initiatives aimed at enhancing employability and even special support for particular groups (e.g. international students). The Analyst looks forward to what the NSF has to say about them.