destinations of leavers from higher education 10/11 survey · destinations of leavers from higher...

Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education 10/11 survey

Prepared for HESA By IFF Research

12 August 2015

Contact details

Jan Shury and David Vivian IFF Research Ltd Chart House 16 Chart Street London N1 6DD Tel +44(0)20 7250 3035 [email protected] [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


IFF_Technical_report.docx 3

Contents

1 Introduction 5

2 Summary 7

Sampling strategy 8 Accessing contact details 8 Survey Coverage 9 Methodology 10 Summary of response levels 11 Data coding and weighting 11

3 Sampling strategy 12

Drawing the starting sample (Sample ‘A’) 12

4 Accessing contact details 15

Volume and “type” of contact details provided 15

5 Survey response and non-response 18

Overall response – Sample ‘A’ 18 Survey Methodology – Sample ‘A’ 20 Overall response via the online platform – Sample ‘A’ 23 Response to letter invitation - First mailing 24 Telephone response rate 24 Survey Methodology – Sample ‘B’ 26 Overall response – Sample ‘B’ 27

6 Changes to the questionnaire 29

Changes to existing questions 29 Questions added to the survey 29

7 Data coding and weighting 32

Data coding 32 Building the data files 32 Weighting 32 HEP weights 34

8 Appendices 35

Appendix A – DLHE Longitudinal 10/11 questionnaire 35 Appendix B – Initial email invitation 68 Appendix C – Text message invitation 69

Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education 10/11 Survey


Appendix D – Letter invitation 70 Appendix E – Confidence Intervals for Key Survey Sub-Groups 71 Appendix F(1) – Response Rates by Key Demographics – Overall 74 Appendix F(2) – Response Rates by Key Demographics – Sample ‘A’ 77 Appendix F(3) – Response Rates by Key Demographics – Sample ‘B’ 80 Appendix G – Online response rate - Sample ‘A’ 83 Appendix H – Postal only response rate - Sample ‘A’ 86 Appendix I – Telephone response rate – Sample ‘A’ 89 Appendix J(1) – Quality of e-mail addresses by key demographics - Sample ‘A’ 92 Appendix J(2) – Quality of e-mail addresses by key demographics - Sample ‘B’ 95 Appendix J(3) – Quality of telephone numbers - Sample ‘A’ 97 Appendix K – Opt outs by key demographics 100 Appendix L – Response rates by key sampling frame demographics 103



1 Introduction

1.1 The Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey investigates the career patterns of

Higher Education graduates. There are two stages to this, the six month survey and the longitudinal

survey.

1.2 The six month survey asks all leavers what they are doing six months after they qualified from their HE

course. It is carried out at an institutional level (rather than as a single centralised survey). The data

collected by each Higher Education Provider (HEP) are then submitted to HESA. These data are used

to prepare statistics about the destinations of qualifiers by HEP. Since the introduction of Key Information

Sets1 (KIS) in September 2012 the emphasis on these data has increased; universities and colleges are

now required to provide standardised information for all their undergraduate courses. This information

is published centrally on the Unistats website to aid prospective students in their choice of HE

organisation.

1.3 The longitudinal survey, the second stage of the DLHE research, to which this technical report relates,

is a follow-up survey that looks at the longer term destinations of leavers up to three and a half years

after they graduate. This survey is also used to provide national context figures for the KIS.

1.4 The current longitudinal survey, conducted with the 2010/11 graduate cohort, is the fifth time the survey

has been conducted. The first survey of this kind was conducted in 2006/07 with those graduating from

Higher Education in 2002/03.

1.5 All surveys have involved an online, postal and telephone element, although the order in which these

methodologies have been employed has changed over time. Text messages were also sent to a

selection of graduates in the 08/09 survey and the 10/11 survey. The approach for the fifth survey

however closely reflects the 08/09 approach and will be discussed in more detail in this report.

1.6 The survey initially evolved as a sample survey – i.e. it was designed to seek responses from a specific

subset of graduates purposively sampled to include certain demographic groups. There was a

modification to this approach for the second longitudinal survey: as well as drawing a sample of those

completing the early survey and attempting to contact these leavers via e-mail, telephone or post, all

graduates not in the drawn sample but for whom an email address or (from the fourth survey onwards)

mobile phone number was available were also invited to take part in the online element, therefore

resulting in a much larger cohort for little additional cost. This approach has been maintained since,

although as Chapter 3 shows there have been refinements made. This report refers to the drawn

graduates henceforth as Sample ‘A’ and the remaining (non-drawn) graduates as Sample ‘B’.

1.7 This technical report aims to provide a full understanding and transparency of the mechanics involved

at each stage. The report covers a number of different aspects:

A summary of the sampling and fieldwork process (Chapter 2)

A reflection on how the sampling approach has changed since the 08/09 survey and the

rationale for this (Chapter 3)

A review of the outcomes of the process of obtaining graduate details from HEPs (Chapter 4)

1 The KIS draws data from a number of student / graduate surveys including satisfaction data drawn from the National

Student Survey (NSS) and the six month DLHE survey along with information provided by individual universities and

colleges around items such as accommodation costs, tuition fees and learning hours.



An analysis of survey response and non response (Chapter 5)

A summary of the changes to the questionnaire (Chapter 6)

A description of the data coding and weighting / sample combination process (Chapter 7)

A set of appendices containing the survey questionnaire, graduate invitations and a detailed

breakdown of response rates and usability of contact details (Chapter 8)



2 Summary

2.1 A total of 121,930 Sample ‘A’ graduates from 158 Higher Education Providers (HEPs) were selected for

inclusion in the main element of the 10/11 DLHE Longitudinal survey. Contact details (email address,

telephone number and/ or postal address) were secured for 118,695 Sample ‘A’ HE graduates. 52,775

went on to complete the survey, representing a response rate of 43% (44% based on all graduates for

whom contact details were secured).

2.2 In addition to the Sample ‘A’ graduates, a further 221,050 Sample ‘B’ graduates had completed the six

month DLHE survey (themselves, rather than through a third party) and as such were eligible for the

DLHE Longitudinal survey. Contact information was obtained for 177,320 graduates. In total 28,875

Sample ‘B’ graduates completed the online survey (via email or text invitation) equating to a response

rate of 13% (16% of all Sample ‘B’ graduates for whom contact details were supplied).

2.3 Across both sample types, interviews were achieved with 81,650 graduates, around 20,000 more than

in the 08/09 survey. The graphic below illustrates the core approach taken to the survey, and the level

of response online, and by telephone.

Figure 2.1: Summary of survey process and outcomes

•158 HEPssupplied contact details for 118,695 records:

•87% have email

•69% have mobile tel

•95% have postal address

•89% have any tel

•3% have no contact details at all

121,930 records drawn

•155 HEPssupplied contact info for 177,320records

•89% have email

•70% have mobile tel

•7% have no contact details at all

221,050 records

not drawn for ‘A’

sample

Email invitation

105,985 graduates emailed

Text message invitation

6,335 graduates texted

Letter invitation

56,655 graduates mailed

Telephone Survey

94,560 graduates available for tel f/w (8th Dec)

All 3

42

,98

0 Eligib

le for Lo

ng D

LHE Su

rvey

18,470 16%

34,300 36%

‘A’

‘B’

Number of responses

Response rate

+

= 52,775 44%Overall ‘A’ responses and response rate

Email invitation

168,905 graduates emailed

Text message invitation

115,680 graduates texted

Overall ‘B’ responses and response rate

28,875 16%

ONLINE

TELEPHONE



Sampling strategy

2.4 A total of 396,425 graduates completed the six month DLHE survey, representing an increase from

previous cohorts. However, third party respondents were deemed ineligible to participate in the follow-

up survey, hence the final sample size for the 10/11 survey was 342,980, a decrease from 354,730 in

the 08/09 survey.

2.5 In contrast with previous waves, Sample ‘A’ was only drawn once we had information on who had opted

out of the Long DLHE survey (this information was held by each individual HEP). At the end of the six

month DLHE survey 31,145 graduates asked not to take part in future research and were therefore

excluded from Sample ‘A’. This represented 9% of the total sample, the same proportion as in the 08/09

survey.

2.6 Owing to new criteria2 being introduced into the selection process for Sample ‘A’, this subset of

graduates was much larger than previous iterations of the Long DLHE survey, even with opt outs

excluded: 121,930 records were drawn into Sample ‘A’, compared with 80,835 in the 08/09 survey.

Accessing contact details

2.7 In advance of the survey, IFF liaised with all 158 HEPs to obtain contact details (email addresses, phone

numbers and postal addresses) for graduates eligible to participate in the Long DLHE survey.

2.8 Contact details were supplied for 118,695 Sample ‘A’ graduates, 97% of the starting sample and in line

with the previous Long DLHE survey.

2.9 Reflecting the trend over the past few waves, the proportion of email addresses supplied by HEPs

increased once more. An email address was supplied for 87% of Sample ‘A’ graduates, compared to

77% for the 08/09 survey, 60% in 06/07 and 36% in 04/05. There has been a similar improvement in the

provision of mobile telephone numbers: seven in ten graduates (69%) had mobile numbers compared

with six in ten (60%) in 08/09 and half (48%) in 06/07. Indeed, for the first time in Long DLHE history,

graduates were more likely to have been supplied with a mobile number than a landline (69% vs. 61%).

There was little change in the proportion of graduates who had been supplied with a telephone number

(89%: either landline or mobile), or postal address (95%) since 08/09.

2.10 As reported above, 31,145 graduates opted out of the Long DLHE survey either upon completing the six

month survey or at any point since. This left an effective starting sample of 189,910 Sample ‘B’

graduates.

2.11 In line with Sample ‘A’ a higher proportion of email addresses was also supplied for graduates in the ‘B’

sample – 89% of the effective starting sample compared with 78% in 08/09 and 61% in 2006/07. In

addition, mobile telephone numbers were supplied for 132,985 Sample ‘B’ graduates meaning that a

total of 177,320 were contactable for the survey (93% of the effective starting sample, up from 87% in

08/09).

2.12 A breakdown of the proportion of contact details provided for graduates eligible for the 10/11 survey,

compared with the previous survey, is detailed in Table 2.1. Please note that only mobile telephone

numbers and emails were relevant for graduates in Sample ‘B’ for the 10/11 survey. Chapter 4 contains

more details of contact detail acquisition.

2 The new criteria is covered in Chapter 3 – one substantial difference with the previous survey was the oversampling of

graduates funded by Health Education England (HEE).



Table 2.1: Comparison of proportion of contact details supplied for the 08/09 and 10/11

DLHE Longitudinal Surveys

Total sample

08/09 10/11

Starting sample / cohort (participants in early DLHE)

354,730 342,980

Opt out

n 32,425 31,145

% 9% 9%

Sample ‘A’ Sample ‘B’

08/09 10/113 08/09 10/11

Starting sample 80,835

121,930

273,890 221,050

Effective starting sample (eligible sample minus opt outs)

74,140 248,165 189,910

% with email address

Starting sample 71% 87%

70% 76%

Eligible sample 77% 78% 89%

% with tel number


53% 60%

Eligible sample 87% 58% 70%

% with postal address


- -

Eligible sample 96% - -

Survey Coverage

2.13 The survey captures a snapshot of the activities that people who graduated during the 2010/11 academic

year were engaged in on 24th November 2014.

3 Owing to opt outs being excluded in the 10/11 survey, the number of graduates in the Sample ‘A’ starting and effective

starting sample was the same. For suitable comparisons, please compare these figures with the 08/09 eligible sample

proportions.



2.14 Where students’ main activity was either employment or study, training or research, a detailed

description was obtained of:

Employment Education

When first obtained the particular job When first started the course of study,

training or research

Employer’s name, and location of

employment Name and type of HEP

Job role / title and industry working in Qualification aim and subject

Terms and conditions of contract / salary Nature of study (full vs. part-time, by

research or teaching, length of course)

Size of employing organisation Funding source

Role of qualification(s) in gaining

employment Motivations for undertaking further study

Motivations for taking the job

How first found out about position

2.15 In addition, the interview gained details of other qualifications that these graduates had obtained since

2010/11, and explored how they now feel about the course from which they graduated in the academic

year 2010/11 and whether or not they considered it good value for money.

2.16 A few modifications were made to the 2008/09 Long DLHE survey questionnaire. While efforts were

made to streamline the survey, the introduction of new questions did lead to a slight increase in the

average survey length. The main difference between the two surveys was the introduction of Q44AA,

which captured the extent to which graduates’ higher education experience improved certain work-

related skills. All changes that were made to the questionnaire are discussed in Chapter 6.

Methodology

2.17 The online survey was activated on Monday 24th November 2014, and closed just over four months later,

on Tuesday 7th April 2015. Two separate methodologies were used to capture responses for Sample ‘A’

and Sample ‘B’ graduates, as the subsections below describe.

Sample ‘A’

2.18 IFF invited Sample ‘A’ graduates to participate in the survey using a variety of methods, allowing them

the opportunity to respond either by telephone or online. Invitations were sent in various stages, as

outlined below:

Stage one: The email invitation. All 105,985 Sample ‘A’ graduates for whom we held a (valid) email

address were sent an invitation to participate in the online survey on 24th November 2014. Reminder

emails were sent out in the following week, before a final reminder was sent in the last week of field

Stage two: The text invitation. Text message invites were directed to the 6,335 graduates for whom

we did not hold an email address. These were sent after the second email reminder, in w/c 1st

December 2014.

Stage three: The telephone survey. Any sampled graduate who had not responded online by w/c 8th

December 2014 and for whom we had a telephone number was contacted by telephone; this amounted

to 94,560 graduates. Telephone interviewing continued extensively until the end of March, when the

bulk of postal invitations were sent (see below).



Stage four: The letter invitation. These were sent out in two separate batches. There was an initial

letter invitation to those 2,360 graduates where the only form of contact we held was a postal address.

This mailout occurred on 3rd December 2014 and a reminder letter was sent to those who had not

completed in January. The main element of postal fieldwork occurred later on in fieldwork, when letters

were sent on 20th March 2015 to a total of 54,295 graduates for whom a postal address was held but

who had not completed survey.

Sample ‘B’

2.19 Sample ‘B’ graduates were only invited (via email or text message) to participate in the survey through

the online platform:

A total of 168,905 Sample ‘B’ graduates were sent email invitation one week after the Sample ‘A’ initial

invites. Two reminder emails were sent shortly afterwards, with a final email in the last week of

fieldwork.

All 115,680 Sample ‘B’ graduates for whom we held a mobile number (and who had not already

completed the survey online) were sent a text message invitation following the second email reminder.

Summary of response levels

2.20 As reported above, graduates could complete the online survey via a number of different invitation types:

email, text or letter invitations.

2.21 Through this combination of survey invitations, a total of 18,470 Sample ‘A’ graduates completed the

online survey (in response to either the email, text or letter invitation). This represented a response rate

of 16% compared to an equivalent of 14% in the 08/09 survey – a positive step forwards, and one that

highlights the impact of the mobile device in responses to online surveys. Indeed, among those

graduates in Sample ‘A’ who completed online, 44% did so using a mobile device such as a mobile

phone or tablet (up from 23% in the 08/09 survey), highlighting the importance of an online invite and

survey that is designed to fit smaller screens.

2.22 Among those Sample ‘A’ graduates who only received the postal invite, 195 completed, representing a

response rate of 8%, consistent with the equivalent response rate in the 08/09 survey.

2.23 By telephone, 34,300 Sample ‘A’ graduates agreed to participate in the survey, representing a 36%

response rate based on all graduates available for calling at the start of telephone interviewing.

2.24 A total of 28,875 Sample ‘B’ graduates completed the survey online, prompted by either an email or text

invite. This represented a response rate of 16% as well. Approaching half of these graduates (46%)

used a mobile device to complete. Chapter 5 contains more detail on levels of response.

Data coding and weighting

2.25 Chapter 7 contains information on the methods used to code verbatim responses, paying particular

attention to classifying job title and business activity. It also documents the process of finalising the data

file and the method used to weight responses such that they were representative of the Long DLHE

population.



3 Sampling strategy

3.1 The Longitudinal Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey seeks to track the destinations

of students roughly 3.5 years after they completed their degree. Leavers who completed the Early DLHE

survey – six months after completing their degree – were invited to take part in this follow-up survey.

3.2 The survey was initially designed as a sample survey, seeking responses from specific subsets of

graduates purposively sampled to include certain demographic groups. Since the first Long DLHE

survey it has also invited graduates who are not included in the drawn sample to take part in the online

element of the survey, resulting in a much larger cohort for little additional cost. These groups are

categorised as Sample ‘A’ and Sample ‘B’ respectively.

3.3 A total of 396,425 HE leavers completed the six month DLHE survey in this cohort. However, in a move

away from previous iterations of Long DLHE, where a response was gained through a third party or

other informed source (such as the institution’s own student record), these graduates were excluded

from the follow-up survey. This reduced the starting sample for the Long DLHE survey to 342,980, a

slight decrease from 354,730 in the 2008/09 survey.

Drawing the starting sample (Sample ‘A’)

3.4 There was a further change to the sampling approach relating to the way those who had opted out of

the Long DLHE survey at the end of their six month DLHE survey were treated. This opt out information

is held by Higher Education Providers (HEPs) and not returned to HESA. Therefore graduates can only

be identified as having opted out of the survey when contact is made with each HEP to acquire contact

details for the longitudinal survey.

3.5 There was concern however that the original sampling frame designed for Sample ‘A’ graduates could

be skewed towards those graduate subgroups that were less likely to have opted out of the Long DLHE

survey (Chapter 4 contains more detail on this).

3.6 As a result, IFF drew graduates into Sample ‘A’ only after information had been collected from each HEP

on whether their graduates had opted out. IFF then removed those graduates who had opted out of the

survey before commencing the same selection process of Sample ‘A’ graduates as conducted in

previous surveys.

3.7 New criteria was also introduced for drawing Sample ‘A’, thereby increasing the number of graduates in

this group from previous years. These new subsets included:

Leavers whose degrees were funded by Health Education England (HEE)

Leavers who obtained a degree in Computer Science

POLAR3 quintile 1 or 2 leavers (geographic wards with the lowest young participation rates in Higher

Education)

Leavers from England-based ‘specialist HEPs’

3.8 A total of 121,930 Sample ‘A’ graduates from 158 HEPs were selected for inclusion in the main element

of the 10/11 DLHE Longitudinal survey. As noted above, none of these graduates had opted out of the

survey, although contact details were not available for all. This selection process randomly drew

graduates using the proportions detailed in Table 3.1 overleaf. Responses are recorded in Appendix L.



Table 3.1: DLHE Longitudinal 2010/11 Survey sampling frame (A sample)

Type of leaver DLHE Sample size

Sample ‘A’ size Actual proportion sampled

Ethnic Group

Black 14,755 7,035 48%

Asian 27,755 11,385 41%

Mixed 8,545 5,530 65%

Other Ethnic Group 3,210 2,930 91%

Research Students

Doctorate and Masters Research 7,900 6,955 88%

Health Education England

HEE leavers (excluding Research) 47,445 43,295 91%

Sampling for HEPs in England

HND/HNC leavers 2,960 2,715 92%

Foundation degree leavers 13,525 3,755 28%

Sandwich - industrial placement 10,165 3,900 38%

POLAR3 quintile 1 or 2 56,045 13,145 23%

Specialist HEP leavers 28,105 7,315 26%

Leavers in receipt of Disabled Students’

Allowance (DSA) 10,950 3,940 36%

Disabled students not in receipt of DSA 11,285 4,105 36%

Unemployed in DLHE 2010/11 35,135 9,020 26%

Self-employed in DLHE 2010/11 10,780 3,765 35%

Chemistry leavers 2,880 2,535 88%

Physics leavers 2,480 2,180 88%

Mathematics leavers 6,365 3,480 55%

Engineering leavers 14,930 4,605 31%

European language leavers 5,805 3,445 59%

Non-European language leavers 715 625 87%

Computer science leavers 11,055 3,935 36%

Other* 69,905 3,015 4%

Sampling for HEPs in Wales

Wales domiciled 15,295 5,960 39%

HEPs in Wales 17,485 6,705 38%

Sampling for HEPs in Scotland

Scotland domiciled 22,505 6,815 30%

HEPs in Scotland 25,345 7,430 29%

Sampling for HEPs in Northern

Ireland

Northern Ireland domiciled 9,405 5,795 62%

HEPs in Northern Ireland 7,125 4,720 66%

Total 342,980 121,930 36%

*= all remaining leavers from English HEPs not explicitly stated above.



3.9 In addition to the Sample ‘A’ graduates, a further 221,050 graduates who had completed the six month

DLHE survey were eligible for the DLHE Longitudinal survey. These were drawn into Sample ‘B’. One

in seven (14%) of these leavers had however opted out of the Long DLHE survey at the end of their six

month DLHE survey and were therefore not included in fieldwork – Chapter 4 has more information on

this.



4 Accessing contact details

4.1 This chapter reviews the process of collating sample (graduate contact details) from HEPs.

4.2 HEPs were contacted by the IFF Research Project Team by e-mail and then through a series of follow-

up telephone conversations, which were pursued until a database of graduate contacts (and opt out

information) was successfully received at IFF’s offices. The initial e-mail included reassurances as to

the Data Protection implications of providing contact details, a template database indicating how the

contact details would ideally be provided / formatted and a telephone number and reply e-mail address

for the Project Team at IFF. All HEPs were given the name of a dedicated “handler” at IFF, who was

their first point of contact.

4.3 A total of 158 HEPs were approached to participate in 10/11 Longitudinal survey, all of which supplied

contact information where possible.

Volume and “type” of contact details provided

4.4 As reported in Chapter 3, a slightly different sampling approach was adopted for the 10/11 survey

whereby IFF selected the Sample ‘A’ and Sample ‘B’ cohorts once all graduate contact details had been

received from HEPs. Consequently, HEPs were asked to populate one file with graduate contact details

for all those eligible for the 10/11 survey, as opposed to two separate Sample ‘A’ and Sample ‘B’ files.

4.5 In total, postal addresses, email addresses, landline telephone numbers and mobile telephone numbers

were sought for 342,980 graduates.

4.6 Opt outs were removed prior to the selection of Sample ‘A’ graduates resulting in an effective starting

sample of 121,930. Sample ‘B’ comprised of the remaining 221,050 graduates. Of these, 31,145 had

opted out of the DLHE Longitudinal survey (9% of the total sample) leaving an effective starting sample

of 189,910. These figures provide the basis for the proportions of contact details given in this chapter.

4.7 Positively, opt outs were distributed fairly evenly across subgroups, as shown by tables in Appendix K.

There was little or no difference by gender and age while by ethnicity, Black graduates were the least

likely to opt out (7%). Finally, higher opt out levels can be seen among graduates from Higher degree

research courses (12%) and Other postgraduate courses (10%) with those graduating from a First

degree, a Higher degree taught course and other undergraduate degrees equally likely to opt out (each

9%).

Sample ‘A’

4.8 Contact information was supplied for 118,695 of the 121,930 Sample ‘A’ graduates. This amounts to

97% of the effective starting sample, the same proportion of contact information supplied for the 2008/09

Sample ‘A’ graduate cohort.

4.9 Nearly all HEPs (156 out of 158) provided some form of contact detail for at least 80% of their graduates

in the effective starting sample. Indeed, the majority of HEPs (110) provided contact details for all of

their graduates in the effective starting sample. Table 4.1 shows the number of providers supplying

different proportions and types of contact information for the Sample ‘A’ graduates. As seen in previous

Longitudinal DLHE surveys, postal addresses were the most common form of contact detail provided

and were supplied for 95% of graduates in the effective starting sample. A landline or mobile telephone

number was provided for 89% of graduates and an email address for 87%.



Table 4.1: Number of HEPs providing contact details of different types for sampled (A)

graduates in different proportions

Proportion of contact details provided

Sample ‘A’ HEPs

Any form of contact

Postal address

Telephone number

Landline number

Mobile Phone

Email address

100% 110 82 26 0 3 29

95 to 99% 30 43 60 1 13 43

90 to 94% 9 12 23 1 30 26

80 to 89% 7 16 31 33 40 33

70 to 79% 0 1 8 42 24 17

60 to 69% 0 1 4 29 10 2

50 to 59% 1 0 4 20 7 4

40 to 49% 0 1 0 12 6 0

30 to 39% 0 1 0 4 10 2

20 to 29% 1 1 2 9 5 1

10 to 19% 0 0 0 3 5 1

1 to 9% 0 0 0 3 3 0

0% 0 0 0 1 2 0

Total number of

contacts 118,695 116,135 108,170 74,220 83,585 105,985

Proportion of

effective starting

sample (10/11)

97% 95% 89% 61% 69% 87%

Proportion of

effective starting

sample (08/09)

97% 96% 87% 62% 60% 77%

Base: all participating HEPs (158)

4.10 As shown in Table 4.1, 26 HEPs provided a telephone number for 100% of their graduates and a further

114 provided a telephone number for between 80% and 99%. Just two HEPs provided telephone

numbers for fewer than half of their graduates. This compares to six for the 08/09 survey and 10 for the

06/07 survey.

4.11 The improvement in the provision of mobile numbers seen between the 06/07 and the 08/09 survey was

evident once again for the 10/11 survey (69% of the effective starting sample returned with a mobile

number for the 2010/11 survey compared to 60% in the 2008/09 survey and 48% in the 2006/07 survey).

4.12 The proportion of landline numbers returned remained similar (61% compared to 62% in the 08/09

survey). As a result, mobile numbers became the most common form of telephone number supplied,

accounting for 77% of the sample with any telephone number (landlines accounting for 69%). This could

reflect the rise in the use of mobile telephone numbers, but equally could be a result of an improvement

in HEP processes for capturing this type of contact detail.

4.13 The proportion of e-mail addresses supplied increased once again, from 77% in the 08/09 survey to

87% in 10/11. Over four in ten (46%) HEPs provided an email address for at least 95% of their graduates.

This compares with just under three in ten (28%) in the 08/09 survey.



4.14 Consequently, the usable sample of contactable graduates closely mirrored the initial survey sample in

most respects. That is, there were no particular demographic sub-groups for whom we were markedly

more or less able to gather contact details, and there was no marked skew in the usable sample4. Most

sub-groups of graduates were represented in similar proportions in the effective sample.

Sample ‘B’

4.15 Out of 221,050 graduates in Sample ‘B’, 189,910 were eligible for Long DLHE having not opted out.

4.16 Over nine in ten (93%) Sample ‘B’ graduates in the effective starting sample were returned with either

an email or a mobile. This marks another improvement from the 87% achieved in the 08/09 survey.

These graduates came from 155 HEPs; three small HEPs only had graduates who had opted of the

survey.

4.17 Table 4.2 shows the number of providers supplying different proportions of e-mail addresses and mobile

telephone numbers for the Sample ‘B’ cohort.

Table 4.2: Number of HEPs providing contact details of different types for Sample ‘B’

graduates in different proportions

Proportion of contact details provided

Sample ‘B’ HEPs

Any form of contact

Email address Mobile Phone

100% 54 32 3

95 to 99% 56 46 9

90 to 94% 21 24 32

80 to 89% 19 33 38

70 to 79% 0 11 26

60 to 69% 2 2 12

50 to 59% 0 4 6

40 to 49% 0 0 5

30 to 39% 2 2 7

20 to 29% 1 1 8

10 to 19% 0 0 4

1 to 9% 0 0 4

0% 0 0 1

Total number of contacts 177,320 168,905 132,985

Proportion of effective

starting sample (10/11) 93% 89% 70%

Proportion of effective

starting sample (08/09) 87% 78% 58%

Base: all HEPs with graduates in effective starting sample (155)

4.18 Across Sample ‘A’ and Sample ‘B’, contact details were acquired for a total of 296,015 graduates. This

represents 86% of the total starting sample, including opt outs (342,980). As the total proportion of opt

outs (9%) was in line with the proportion in the 08/09 survey (also 9%), this shows a continued

4 Although the purposive sample design means that the sample was not wholly representative of the Class of 2010/11.



improvement in sample acquisition; in 2008/09 contact information was provided for 81% of the Early

DLHE population and in 06/07 it was 66%.

5 Survey response and non-response

5.1 This chapter starts by considering the overall response rate to the survey, i.e. the number of graduates

completing the survey expressed as a proportion of those eligible to take part. The various

methodological approaches adopted are then discussed i.e. email, postal and text invitations as well as

contact made by telephone (for Sample ‘A’ only). Alongside this, the quality of contact information

provided is outlined and specific patterns by demographics highlighted where relevant. Response rates

to the online survey (i.e. graduates completing as a result of the email, text or postal invitation) and the

telephone survey (again, for Sample ‘A’ only) are also considered here.

Overall response – Sample ‘A’

5.2 Across all methodologies, 52,775 Sample ‘A’ graduates completed the survey. This represents a

response rate of 43% against the starting sample, one percentage point higher than the 08/09 survey

(42%). As a proportion of the effective starting sample – those with contact details – this rises to 44%.

5.3 Before adjusting for design effects, findings from Sample ‘A’ can, at an overall level, be reported with a

statistical error of ±0.4% (at the 95% confidence level, for findings of 50%). This is a very high degree

of statistical confidence; if the survey reports that 50% of all 2010/11 graduates share a characteristic or

experience, the “real” value is 95% likely to lie between 49.6% and 50.4%.

5.4 It should be noted that for findings which are considerably above or below 50%, the statistical error will

reduce. By contrast, where reported findings relate to questions not asked of all of the sub-group (e.g. if

one is looking at findings among all black graduates who were engaged in study, training or research on

26th November 2014) then the statistical error will increase – sometimes considerably.

5.5 In some cases, findings for various sub-groups naturally drop below these overall levels. Tables 8.1-8.6

in Appendix E show the confidence intervals with which findings can be reported by key survey sub-

groups.

5.6 Variation in response rates among different sub-groups of graduates are shown in Tables 8.13-8.18 in

Appendix F(2). Response discussed in this chapter, and in the Appendix tables, is based on the

contactable sample (i.e. all those given an opportunity to respond), rather than the starting sample (i.e.

those that were selected for inclusion in the initial survey sample).

5.7 Response patterns by key demographics (gender, age and ethnicity) are broadly in line with previous

DLHE Longitudinal surveys:

As seen with the previous survey, women were equally as likely to respond as men (45% and 44%

respectively). Prior to the 08/09 survey, women were slightly more likely to respond.

Older graduates were particularly likely to respond to the survey; 49% of those aged 41 to 50

completed the survey as did 56% of those aged over 51. This is consistent with the 08/09 survey.

As found previously, White graduates were more likely to respond than non-White graduates (46%

and 40% respectively) and Black graduates remained the least likely to respond (37%).

5.8 Graduates with a higher degree in research tended to be more likely to respond to the survey (47%), as

did those with ‘other’ postgraduate qualifications (i.e. neither postgraduate research nor postgraduate

taught graduates) and those graduating from a First Degree (each 45%). As was the case in the 08/09



survey, the lowest response rate was found among graduates of ‘other’ undergraduate degrees (i.e. not

those graduating from a first degree) (41%).

5.9 Response rates by subject of study varied substantially, with a difference of 23 percentage points

between the highest and lowest response rates. The full range of response rates by subject of study is

illustrated in Figure 5.1.5

5.10 In line with previous DLHE Longitudinal Surveys, graduates of Combined subjects (61%), Veterinary,

Agriculture and related subjects (50%), Physical sciences (50%) and Education (49%) were among

those with the highest response rates and those graduating from Law among those with the lowest

(38%).

Figure 5.1: Survey response by subject of study

5.11 The response rate varied by HEP from 29% to 70%, although most fell within the 40% to 59% range, as

Table 5.1 shows.

5 For analysis purposes where graduates achieved a single qualification aim covering more than one subject area, the

subject returned in the F_SBJ1 field in the original sample file supplied by HESA was assigned.

61%

50% 50% 49% 49% 47% 47% 47% 46% 46% 46%44% 43% 43% 43% 42% 40%

38% 38% 38%



Table 5.1: Number of HEPs for which different levels of response achieved

Response rate achieved Number of HEPs 10/11

Base 158

60%+ 7

50% to 59% 34

40% to 49% 86

30% to 39% 30

20% to 29% 1

Less than 20% 0

5.12 As shown in Table 5.1 nearly all HEPs achieved a response rate at 30% or above with just one falling

between 20% and 29%. This compares to seven HEPs achieving a response rate of less than 30% for

the 08/09 survey, indicating that responses were more evenly distributed across HEPs this time.

5.13 Unlike previous surveys, where Scotland and Northern Ireland HEPs have tended to experience a

superior level of response, the response rate by HEP location was fairly consistent, ranging from 43%

in Northern Ireland to 46% in Wales, as shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Response rate by HEP location

Location of HEP Response rate 10/11

Base 158

Northern Ireland 43%

Scotland 45%

England 44%

Wales 46%

Survey Methodology – Sample ‘A’

5.14 Depending on the type of contact information available, Sample ‘A’ graduates were invited to participate

in the DLHE Longitudinal survey via either the telephone or online platform (i.e. email, postal letter, or

text).

5.15 Each stage of the Sample ‘A’ survey is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow. Sample

quality and response rates are also considered. The online response rate is calculated by looking at all

those receiving email, text or postal invitations as these invitations directed graduates to the online

platform.

Email invitations

5.16 All Sample ‘A’ graduates for whom we held a (valid) e-mail address were sent an invitation to participate

in the online survey on 24th November 2014.

5.17 In line with changes made to the email content and layout for the 08/09 survey, the emails were made

concise and accessible. This was especially pertinent given the recent rise in smartphone usage and

the volume of mobile phone contact details received from HEPs. The introductory paragraph was also

adapted for Research graduates to make it appear more relevant to this subset.



5.18 The invitations included a link to the dedicated survey website, and were individualised. This website

comprised several pages explaining the background to the project, information on HESA and IFF

Research and a page on data protection information which contained links to HESA’s data protection

policy and their registration on the Information Commissioner’s website. A copy of the initial email forms

Appendix B.

5.19 After a week, a reminder e-mail was sent out to all of those who had not already responded to the first

invitation. After another few days, a second reminder was sent. A final reminder was sent 1st April 2015,

the final week of the fieldwork period.

5.20 In total, 105,985 Sample ‘A’ graduates were emailed over this period. Consistent with the 08/09 survey

emails were sent in the evenings (due to research conducted by IFF Research which suggests that

invitations sent in the evenings are more conducive to a high response rate).

5.21 As in 08/09 institutional logos were included in the email invitations (where given HEP consent) and the

name of the relevant HEP was included in the subject line and sender name (again where consent was

gained). Those receiving an email with a logo were slightly more likely to complete the online survey

(19% compared to 17% of those not receiving an IFF branded email) suggesting a positive, albeit slight,

impact.

Quality of email addresses

5.22 Prior to the invitations being sent, all email addresses were ‘cleaned’, where possible. This was to correct

for formatting errors (e.g. a missing ‘@’ sign) or common typos (e.g. ‘hotmail.con rather than

hotmail.com).

5.23 Despite the initial cleaning process 9,385 email addresses were classified as undeliverable, either

because the address was not known or because they were ‘soft bounce backs’ (where the email was

successfully sent but a message was later received from the recipient's mail server saying that it could

not be delivered for example because their inbox was full)6. This represents 9% of all supplied email

addresses, and continues an upward trend in the accuracy of email addresses supplied for the Long

DLHE survey (50% for the 04/05 survey; 25% in 06/07; 12% in 08/09). For the remainder of this report

‘undeliverable’ refers to unknown email addresses and those resulting in a bounce back.

5.24 Tables in Appendix J(1) outline the proportion of undelivered e-mails by a number of key demographics.

In summary:

Consistent with previous Long DLHE surveys, there was little variation in email quality with respect to

gender, age and ethnicity.

Looking at email quality by course type, the highest proportion of undeliverable emails was observed

among graduates from other undergraduate degrees (10%) and lowest among those graduating from

higher degrees taught and other postgraduate degrees (each 7%). This perhaps had an adverse

impact on the response rate among this group (who were less likely to complete online).

By subject studied, the poorest quality email addresses were garnered for graduates from ‘Eastern,

Asiatic, African, American and Australasian Languages, Literature and related subjects’ and other

‘Combined subjects’, each with 12% of emails undeliverable.

Emails for graduates from HEPs in Wales appeared to be the least accurate (11% undeliverable). This

compares to 6% of email addresses from HEPs in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and 9% of the email

sample from England. However the variation in quality is much lower than previous DLHE Longitudinal

6 Where two email addresses were supplied for a graduate, then both had to be unreachable to be included in this category.



Surveys. For example, for the 08/09 survey nearly one-fifth of graduate emails provided by Welsh

HEPs were undeliverable (19%), compared to just 4% of email addresses from HEPs in Northern

Ireland.

Text message invitations

5.25 For the 08/09 survey the new methodological approach of sending a text message to graduates who

had not completed the survey online was introduced, for both Sample ‘A’ and ‘B’ graduates. This

approach was tweaked for the 10/11 survey – for Sample ‘A’ graduates at least – so that text message

invites were only directed to those 6,335 graduates for whom we did not hold an email address and were

yet to complete.

5.26 The text message was 156 characters in length (within the 160 character limit) and contained an

individualised link which logged the recipient straight into the online survey. To allow for some

introductory text, URL rewriting was used to shorten the length of the individualised link freeing up

additional characters. Copies of the text form Appendix C.

5.27 A total of 1,755 text messages were not delivered. This represents 28% of all text messages sent

(compared to 33% for the 08/09 survey).

Telephone survey

5.28 Telephone interviewing commenced on Monday 1st December 2014. Initially only those with a telephone

number but no email address were loaded into the CATI software.

5.29 The remaining sampled graduates for whom we had a telephone number (and who had not responded

online) were contacted by telephone starting the w/c 8th December 2014, once they had received a

second email reminder. In total, 94,560 graduates were available for the telephone fieldwork stage.

5.30 Calls were generally made over the weekend or on weekday evenings between 5 and 9pm7. Owing to

the much greater number of interviews required by phone than in previous surveys, telephone

interviewing continued to be resourced heavily until the final postal stage of the survey.

5.31 A total of 23,700 records proved to be unusable (i.e. telephone numbers were unobtainable, or

forwarding contact details were not available). This represents one quarter of the total number of

graduates available at the start of telephone fieldwork (25%) and compared with 28% from the 08/09

survey. More detailed sample outcomes from telephone fieldwork are explored later in this chapter.

5.32 Tables in Appendix J(3) detail the quality of telephone contact details by key sample demographics and

key differences are noted below:

Women were slightly more likely than men to have unusable telephone numbers (26% compared to

24%).

By age there was no clear pattern, but those aged 31-40 were the most likely to have unusable

telephone numbers (31%).

In terms of ethnicity, the highest proportion of unusable telephone numbers was found among Black

graduates (32%).

7 So that graduates living abroad received calls during the evening and weekend daytime in their respective timezones,

calls were made from IFF offices over 24 hours, and bookings were made with UK-based graduates between 9am and

5pm where these times had been requested.



Finally, those graduating from HEPs in Northern Ireland were the least likely to have unusable

telephone numbers (19%) compared to 25% in England, 26% in Wales and 27% in Scotland.

Letter invitations

5.33 The letter invitations were sent out in two separate batches, and, in line with the approach adopted for

the 08/09 survey comprised a one-sided letter directing recipients to the online survey.

1. The first mailing targeted those graduates for whom the only means of contact we had was by post

(i.e. we had neither a telephone number nor an email address for them) and was sent out on 3rd

December 2014 to 2,360 graduates.

A reminder mailing was sent out to those who had not responded to the initial mailing on 13th January

2015. A total of 2,260 leavers were mailed the reminder letter.

2. The main element of postal fieldwork began with letters posted on 20th March 2015 with an initial

mailing being sent to those for whom a postal address was held who had not already responded to

the survey. Once the letters were mailed out, telephone interviewing was scaled back such that only

a handful of phone interviewers attempted to make contact with remaining Sample ‘A’ graduates.

There was no reminder letter. In total 54,295 graduates were included in the main postal sample.

5.34 Across both phases (postal only and main postal sample) a total of 56,640 initial invitation letters were

sent out.

Overall response via the online platform – Sample ‘A’

5.35 In total, 18,470 Sample ‘A’ graduates responded to the survey via the online platform. This represents

16% of those provided with an email address, a mobile number or a postal address (118,585 graduates

in total) and compares to 14% for the 08/09 survey (where 10,035 Sample ‘A’ graduates completed from

a possible 72,105 with either an email, mobile number or postal address).8

5.36 Key differences among 10/11 graduates are noted below, and also presented in Tables 8.25-8.30 in

Appendix G:

Those aged 51+ were the most likely to respond online (21%).

By ethnicity, Asian and Black graduates were least likely to respond online (10% and 11%

respectively).

Graduates from a higher research degree were particularly likely to respond using the online platform

(25%), as were those graduating from Combined subjects (25%), Physical Sciences (21%) and

European Languages, Literature and related subjects (21%) courses.

Graduates from HEPs in Northern Ireland were particularly unlikely to respond online (9%).

5.37 These trends by demographic sub-group broadly reflect those seen in relation to the overall response

patterns for Sample ‘A’.

5.38 In-house work was conducted to make the online platform more user friendly for mobile devices, in

anticipation of a greater use of such devices when completing the online survey. Indeed, 44% of those

who completed the survey online did so using a mobile device such as a tablet (11%) or mobile phone

(34%), compared to 23% for the 08/09 survey.

8 There was a total of 110 Sample ‘A’ graduates for whom only a landline telephone number was available. This reduces

the overall ‘contactable’ number from 118,695, as seen in Table 4.1, to 118,585 for the online survey. The 08/09 figures

are rebased to reflect all those with a mobile telephone number, postal address and / or an email address.



5.39 Looking at those completing using a mobile phone, there are some key differences by demographics,

as noted below (there were minimal differences in terms of tablet use):

Females were much more likely than males to use a mobile phone to complete the online survey (38%

and 26% respectively).

Propensity to complete the survey using a mobile phone decreased with aged (40% of those aged 25

and under, 36% of those aged 26-30, 32% of those aged 31-40, 25% of those aged 41-50 and just

10% of those aged over 50).

Looking by ethnicity, Black graduates were particularly likely to respond using a mobile phone (42%)

closely followed by Asian graduates (38%). Those of mixed, White, or Other ethnic backgrounds were

equally as likely to use a mobile phone to complete the survey (each 33%).

Response to letter invitation - First mailing

5.40 Among the 2,360 Sample ‘A’ graduates for whom only a postal address was supplied, 195 responded

to the survey as a result of receiving the letter. This represents a response rate of 8%, directly

comparable to the response rate achieved for the 08/09 survey (also 8%).

5.41 Tables in Appendix H show the variation in response rate by key demographics, based on the 2,360

Sample ‘A’ graduates receiving the initial letter.

5.42 Key differences by demographic subgroup are outlined below, although it is worth noting that base sizes

are relatively low:

Female graduates were more likely than male graduates to respond as a result of the letter (9%

compared to 6% respectively).

Looking by age, older graduates were more likely than younger graduates to respond as a result of

the letter (12% of those aged over 40 compared to 8% of those aged 40 and under).

In terms of ethnicity, Black graduates were the least likely to respond to the postal letter (4%) closely

followed by Asian graduates (5%) and those of mixed ethnicity (6%) while the response rate was

nearing one in ten among White graduates and graduates from Other ethnic backgrounds (each 9%).

Response rates were also higher among those graduating from HEPs in England (9%) and Scotland

(7%) compared to those graduating from Northern Ireland and Wales (each 6%).

By course type, those graduating from higher degrees research courses or other postgraduate

degrees were the most likely to respond as a result of receiving the postal letter (12% and 10%

respectively) compared to those graduating from other undergraduate degrees (5%), higher degrees

taught (7%) and first degrees (8%).

Telephone response rate

5.43 As previously reported, the starting sample available for the telephone fieldwork phase consisted of

94,560 graduates. Of these, 34,300 completed the survey over the telephone (a response rate of 36%).

This represents a drop of six percentage points from the 08/09 survey, which is partly a result of the

much higher response achieved online.

5.44 As a proportion of the total starting sample of 121,930 (irrespective of whether this was returned with

any form of contact detail) the telephone response rate was 28%. This is consistent with the 08/09

survey, for which the telephone response rate was 29%.

5.45 Tables in Appendix I show how levels of response varied by key demographics and are summarised

below:



There were no differences by gender.

The rate of response amongst older graduates was higher than their younger counterparts; 46% of

those aged 51 and over responded by telephone as did 41% of those aged 41-50. This compared to

34% of those aged 31-40, 33% of those ages 26-30 and 37% of those aged 25 and under. This is

consistent with the 08/09 survey response rates.

Results by ethnicity also mirror those found in the 08/09 survey with Asian graduates and White

graduates the most likely to respond (38% and 37% respectively).

By course studied, those graduating from Combined subjects were the most likely to respond by

telephone (48%) and those from Eastern, Asiatic, African, American and Australasian Languages,

Literature and related subjects the least likely (28%). Response rates for the remaining courses

ranged from 31% to 40%.

Telephone Sample Outcomes

5.46 Table 5.3 shows the sample outcome of all 94,560 records contacted during the telephone stage.

Table 5.3: Detailed sample outcomes of telephone stage

Outcome Number % of all telephone

sample

% of all usable

telephone sample Base 94,560 94,560 70,855

Unusable 23,700 25%

Completed telephone interview 34,300 36% 48%

Completed online interview 2,525 3% 4%

Claimed / intended to complete online 2,615 3% 4%

Ongoing contact 21,490 23% 30%

Claimed they did not graduate from HE in

10/11 385 <1% 1%

Breakdown during Interview 4,470 5% 6%

Refusal 5,070 5% 7%

5.47 As previously reported, interviews were achieved with 36% of those graduates included in the telephone

stage and around one quarter (25%) of all telephone numbers proved to be unusable.

5.48 It is perhaps more pertinent to focus on response rates whereby the completed interviews are calculated

as a proportion of the actual usable telephone sample i.e. excluding all records where the number is

unusable and/or the graduate was not known. This provides an indication of the proportion of all

interviews that would be achievable if provided with more up to date and more accurate records.

5.49 Excluding the 23,700 unusable records would produce an effective telephone sample population of

70,855 and therefore an effective response rate of 48%.

5.50 A combined total of six per cent of graduates contacted by telephone either chose to complete the survey

online (2,525) or had planned to do so (2,615).9

9 Those planning to do so include those who started but did not complete the online survey and those who agreed to

participate in the online survey when contacted via telephone by an IFF interviewer. In the latter case, graduates were

given the website address to the online survey and their unique identifying number to be able to log on.



5.51 For 21,490 respondents, no final outcome was achieved (23%; 30% of those with an usable telephone

number). This compares to 17% for the 08/09 survey and 24% respectively. Refusal rates of 5% and

7% (those refusing as a proportion of useable sample) were more in line with results from the 08/09

survey.

5.52 A total of 4,470 graduates terminated the telephone survey before reaching the end of the interview (5%

of those eligible for the telephone survey). This is the same proportion observed among the equivalent

08/09 cohort eligible for the telephone survey. Chapter 6 identifies the extent to which graduates

terminated their interview at the new questions that were introduced.

Survey Methodology – Sample ‘B’

5.53 As with the previous DLHE Longitudinal surveys Sample ‘B’ graduates were only invited to participate

in the survey via the online platform (i.e. via email or text).

5.54 Each survey stage will be discussed in more detail in the following sections. The overall Sample ‘B’

response rate is considered by looking at the proportion that completed the survey as a result of the

email or text invitation.

Email invitations – Sample ‘B’

5.55 A total of 168,905 Sample ‘B’ graduates were sent email invitation one week after the Sample ‘A’ initial

invites (2nd December 2014). Reminder emails were sent on the 8th December 2014 and again a few

days later. Those with an available email address and who had at least started the survey were also

sent the final reminder email on 1st April 2015.

5.56 As with the Sample ‘A’ cohort, all Sample ‘B’ email addresses were ‘cleaned’ with a similar outcome in

terms of quality. Of the 168,905 emails supplied, 15,175 failed to reach their intended destination (9%

of all e-mails sent). This is an improvement on the 08/09 and 06/07 surveys (these experiencing 13%

and 17% unusable email addresses respectively).

5.57 Tables in Appendix J(2) provide a detailed breakdown of the quality of emails supplied by HEPs by key

demographic variables. The notable variations are outlined below:

As with Sample ‘A’ there was minimal variation in the quality of email addresses by age group (ranging

from 8% to 10% where age was known).

Looking by HEP location, email addresses for graduates from HEPs in Northern Ireland and Scotland

were of the highest quality, each with just 5% of emails undeliverable. As in 08/09, email addresses

belonging to graduates from HEPs in Wales were of lowest quality (12%) although this is a decrease

of five percentage points since the 08/09 survey.

In terms of subject area, the email addresses for graduates from Technologies and mass

communication and Documentation were the poorest quality (13% and 12% undelivered, respectively)

and email addresses for those graduating from Combined subjects courses were of the best quality

(with just 4% undelivered).

Text message invitations – Sample ‘B’

5.58 All 115,680 Sample ‘B’ graduates for whom we held a mobile number (and who had not already

completed the survey online) were sent a text message invitation, on 16th December 2014. Those who

had been sent an email previously received a ‘warm’ text of 154 characters in length, reminding them of

the opportunity to participate while those who had not received any prior communication received the

same text as the sample ‘A’ graduates; the ‘cold’ text. Copies of the ‘warm’ text also form Appendix C.



5.59 A total of 32,400 text messages were not delivered. As with Sample ‘A’, this represents 28% of all text

messages sent (compared to 34% for the 08/09 survey).

Overall response – Sample ‘B’

5.60 A total of 28,875 Sample ‘B’ graduates completed the online survey (a response rate of 16% against the

total contactable sample of 177,320). This is an increase of three percentage points from the 08/09

survey where 13% of Sample ‘B’ graduates with available contact information went on to complete the

survey.

5.61 At an overall level, findings from Sample ‘B’ can be reported with a statistical error of ±0.6% (at the 95%

confidence level, for findings of 50%) – this offers a high degree of statistical confidence. That is, if the

survey reports that 50% of all Sample ‘B’ 2010/11 graduates share a characteristic or experience, the

“real” value is 95% likely to lie between 49.4% and 50.6%10.

5.62 Confidence intervals with which findings can be reported for some of the key survey sub-groups are

shown in Appendix E.

5.63 Variation in response rates among key sub-groups are shown in Appendix F(3). Response rates given

below and in the Appendix tables refer to the response rate among the contactable sample (i.e. all those

that were given an opportunity to respond).

5.64 Key variations in patterns of response include the following:

Women were more likely to respond than men (17% compared to 15% of men).

Consistent with Sample ‘A’, older graduates within Sample ‘B’ were particularly likely to respond to the

survey using the online platform; 25% of those aged 51 or over completed the survey (compared with

15% of those aged under 40 and 19% of those aged 41-50).

By ethnicity, response rates broadly mirror those seen among Sample ‘A’ graduates, with Black and

Asian graduates least likely to respond (13% and 10% respectively).

Those graduating from a higher degree taught were most likely to respond to the survey (19%). In line

with Sample ‘A’, graduates of other undergraduate (12%) and other postgraduate degrees (15%) were

the least likely to respond.

Response rates by subject studies are broadly similar to Sample ‘A’ response rates as well; those who

had studied Combined subjects (28%) were among those most likely to respond along with those

graduating from Physical Sciences and Historical and Philosophical studies (22% and 21%

respectively).

As found among the Sample ‘A’ online respondents, graduates from Northern Irish institutions were

the least likely to respond (9%).

5.65 By HEP, response rates varied from 2% to 36% (where interviews were achieved). Most however fell

within the 10% to 19% range, while 56 HEPs had a response rate of 20% or more, as Table 5.4 shows.

Table 5.4: Number of HEPs for which different levels of response achieved

Response rate achieved Number of HEPs 10/11

Base 155

10 Again, not taking into account design effects and assuming an infinite population



40%+ 0

30% to 39% 5

20% to 29% 51

10% to 19% 88

1% to 9% 11

Less than 1% 0

5.66 A slightly higher proportion (46%) of Sample ‘B’ graduates completed using a mobile device; 37% using

a mobile and 10% using a tablet. Demographic patterns are consistent with those observed among the

Sample ‘A’ cohort (female graduates, younger graduates and those of Black or Asian ethnicity the most

likely to respond using a mobile phone).



6 Changes to the questionnaire

6.1 The survey questionnaire broadly retained consistency with the 08/09 questionnaire; however, there

were instances where existing questions were modified slightly, while five new questions were added as

well. The implications of this are discussed later in this chapter.

6.2 Owing to these changes, IFF conducted a pilot exercise to test respondents’ interpretation and

understanding of the questions. Pilot interviews were conducted during October 2014, with nine

graduates). Pilot interviews showed that the basic format of the DLHE Longitudinal survey continues to

work well. Graduates felt the new questions introduced into the 2010/11 survey were generally easy to

understand and answer. The design of the survey was slightly altered as a result of the pilot interviews.

Extra definitions, subtle re-phrasing of questions, and additional answer options (allowing graduates to

answer that something was not relevant to their situation) were among the few changes made to the

survey.

Changes to existing questions

6.3 A handful of questions were modified top improve respondents’ experience of the survey and to ensure

a greater clarity in the findings:

Location of work (Q10): These questions were amended so that in the 10/11 iteration of the survey,

only the first part of the postcode of a respondent’s place of work (Q9) was asked for. If the postcode

was then incorrect (established through an automatic validation process), the respondent would then

be asked for the town of their place of work (Q10). These changes were made as an accurate postcode

is all that is required to establish the location of work, and because it avoids obtaining town names

unnecessarily.

Importance of further qualifications in gaining employment (Q17_1): The findings from the pilot survey

implied that some graduates answered Q17_1 based on a hypothetical situation, owing to the wording,

‘any qualifications you might have obtained’ (e.g. if they had obtained a further qualification, how

important would it have proven to be). As a result the question was reworded as ‘How important were

any qualifications that you obtained after the one you got in 2010/11?’

Name of institution of further study (Q23): As with Q26 and Q39, an auto-predict function was added

to this question in the online survey. This was in order to make the survey more user friendly, and to

ensure accuracy and consistency of spelling.

General higher education experience (Q44A) and preparation for being self-employed / setting up own

business (Q44B): Pilot findings confirmed that there was some confusion over the terminology of a

‘general higher education experience’. Q44A therefore included a definition of this, in order to clarify

what this term encompassed. This explained that ‘general higher education experience’ included the

course graduates completed in 2010/11, as well as any extra-curricular activities they were involved

in during that time. This definition was also repeated as a prompt for Q44B, so as to make it clear to

the respondent that the question was still referring to the same experience.

Questions added to the survey

6.4 The following questions were added to the 2010/11 survey, mainly focusing on the skills graduates

developed and their wider higher education experience.



Whether working as part of the NHS (Q6a)

6.5 Health Education England (HEE), a new stakeholder of the DLHE Longitudinal survey, were keen to

assess the value of funding health students by measuring the extent to which they had found

employment with the NHS after completing their qualification.

6.6 Graduates answering this question (i.e. those funded by HEE) appeared to experience little difficulty

answering this question. Their answers were verified by cross-referencing them against the name of the

employer graduates gave, at Q7.

Impact of work experience / placements which were part of qualification studied (Q16_5)

6.7 An extra iteration was added to Q16, asking respondents to rate the importance of any work experience

or work placement that was part of the qualification they obtained in 2010/11 in gaining employment.

This contained an extra answer option - ‘Did not do any work experience or placement as part of your

qualification’.

6.8 This extra iteration was included to make it possible to measure the extent to which employers value

work experience / placements that are part of higher education courses.

Wider higher education experience (Q44AA)

6.9 While previous surveys have captured whether higher education had helped graduates progress their

career aspirations, a more granular set of questions on developing work-related skills, containing eight

iterations, was added to the 10/11 survey, asking all respondents who did not complete a research

degree11 to assess the extent to which their higher education experience improved the following:

Be innovative in the workplace

Solve problems in your work

Communicate effectively in your work

Make good decisions in your work

Work effectively with others

Take initiative and personal responsibility in your work

Make effective use of information and communication technology in your work

Work effectively with numbers

An extra answer option (‘Not relevant’) was added for the last two iterations of Q44AA, as the pilot study

highlighted that not all respondents felt they developed numerical and ICT skills as part of their

qualification.

Ability to use skills gained during wider higher education experience in employment (Q44AB)

6.10 An additional question was added to the 10/11 survey, asking respondents to assess the extent to which

their employer enabled them to use the skills they gained during their higher education experience.

11 Those who completed a research degree were not asked this set of questions owing to their similarity to Q54.



Recontact by survey partners for inclusion in further research (Q58)

6.11 A new recontact question was added into the closing section of the questionnaire which asked

respondents whether they would be happy to be contacted by the Department for Business Innovation

and Skills (BIS), and other survey partners (or organisations working on their behalf), as part of further

research into graduate training, development and employment.

6.12 Just over two-fifths all Sample ‘A’ respondents (44%) consented to being invited to take part in future

research; there was little difference by method of completion (online or by telephone). In contrast, nearly

half of Sample ‘B’ respondents agreed for their details to be passed on for these purposes (48%)

Drop outs to new questions

6.13 Judging by the paucity of ‘Don’t know’ responses – 1% answered ‘Don’t know’ at each of the new

questions – and the low drop out rates for new questions (see Table 6.1 below), graduates appeared to

understand and respond appropriately to these new questions, particularly Q6a, Q16_5 and Q44AB.

6.14 Approaching 500 Sample ‘A’ and ‘B’ respondents (4.1% of all) did, however, leave the survey at Q44AA,

and this was particularly notable for online respondents (4.2% compared with 2.7% of telephone

respondents). This may be due to the complex ‘look’ of the question, requiring respondents to fill out

answers in a lengthy grid format.

Table 6.1: Proportions dropping out at new questions

Question Methodology

of completion Drop outs

% Drop out

Base (all who dropped out from Q1): All (11,835), Online (10,775), Telephone (1,060)

Q6a Was the organisation you were working for

on 24 November 2014 part of the NHS?

All 5 0.0%

Online * 0.0%

Telephone 5 0.3%

Q16_5

When you gained your employment, how

important were… Any work experience or

work placement that was part of the

qualification you obtained in 2010/11

All 290 2.4%

Online 270 2.5%

Telephone 20 2.0%

Q44AA To what extent has your higher education

experience enabled you to…?

All 480 4.1%

Online 450 4.2%

Telephone 30 2.7%

Q44AB

To what extent does your employer enable

you to use the skills you gained during your

higher education experience?

All 50 0.4%

Online 45 0.4%

Telephone 5 0.7%

*= integer less than 3.



7 Data coding and weighting

Data coding

7.1 Subsequent to fieldwork (i.e. the receipt of online responses, or the conduct of a telephone interview)

verbatim responses were coded to official classifications (in the case of industry, occupation and/or

education data) and/or to code frames developed by IFF to classify responses to some of the more open

survey questions (e.g. activities engaged in on 24th November).

7.2 As with the previous wave of the survey, the “triangulation” method was used for the approach to coding

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) descriptions.

This involved looking at the employer name, description of employer’s business activity and job title and

role alongside one another allowing for a more complete picture when coding SIC and SOC.

7.3 Responses were also grouped together thematically to ensure that verbatim was coded efficiently and

by peer groups (e.g. research students) as a way of maximising the data available.

Building the data files

7.4 In advance of building the final data file IFF and HESA agreed to a test delivery of coded and edited

data w/c 26th January 2015. This enabled HESA to test the data upload process and the checking

procedures that would be carried out on the final dataset. Part of this process involved the production

of a technical specification which detailed the following:

Field names, types and widths

Valid field values and labels

Information on the data validation process

7.5 The final phase of producing a data file was to quality control / logic check the combined data file, making

amends to correct for one-off and systematic errors in responses.

Weighting

7.1 As per the previous survey, Samples ‘A’ and Sample ‘B’, were combined and analysed as one. In line

with previous approaches to weighting, the samples were weighted, firstly to correct for selection bias

and then to correct for response bias, to ensure that the weighted survey findings were representative

of those who completed the six month DLHE survey.

7.2 An additional weight was also developed for use when conducting analysis at individual HEP level.

7.3 The remainder of this chapter describes in detail the specific weighting methodology that was used.

7.4 The database of graduates selected to take part in the survey was split into two sub-samples:

Sample ‘A’: A group which was sampled using various sampling fractions, dependent on key profiling

variables. The purpose of the sampling fraction was to over and under-sample certain groups in order

to respectively boost the number of cases in particular subgroups and prevent certain groups from

dominating the sample. Within this group the sampling fraction ranged between 0.06 (6%) and 1

(100%). Respondents selected in the sample were vigorously followed up using telephone, postal and

email contact to ensure they completed the survey.



Sample ‘B’: A purposeful sample of respondents for whom emails and mobile phone numbers were

available. All of these respondents had a 100% probability of selection. These respondents were only

invited via email and text message not followed up using other methods.

Stage 1 – Sampling Weights

7.5 Both completes and incompletes for Sample A were initially weighted to correct for the different sampling

fractions used. The weights were the inverse of the sampling fraction by case. A scaling factor was

applied to these weights across Sample A to give an average weight of 1, delivering the same weighted

as unweighted base.

7.6 Given that Sample B was a purposeful sample, all cases in Sample B were assigned a weight of 1 at

this stage (effectively leaving them unweighted).

7.7 The net outcome was to provide sampling weights for both samples which give the same unweighted as

weighted marginal totals for Sample A and B. The Sample A weights were used as an input weight into

Stage 2.

Stage 2 – Non-Response Weights

7.8 A predictive model was developed to model non-response behaviour (whether respondents completed

the survey) using Binary Logistic Regression. Given the large difference in response rate between

Sample ‘A’ (43%) and Sample ‘B’ (13% )12 and following the same convention as the last wave of

research, it was decided to develop the model based on Sample ‘A’ only and then apply the predictions

from the Model to both Sample A and B.

7.9 The Logistic Regression model provided a prediction of the probability of completing vs not responding.

The model was estimated with the sampling weights from Stage 1 active.

7.10 The following profiling variables were screened as potential predictors:

Method of Data Collection for the Early Survey

Age

Maximum Level of Qualification Obtained

Subject of Course

DLHE Activity

Specialist Higher Education Institution

Ethnicity (Asian; Black; Mixed; Other; White; Unknown/Refused)

Disabled and in receipt of DSA

Domicile

Industrial Placement

Employment activity

Maths marker

Country of Institution

12 The difference in response rate between Sample A and B is a result of Sample ‘A’ graduates being followed up more

extensively than Sample ‘B’.



Health Education England leaver

OUG Marker

7.11 A number of variables in the model were recoded or collapsed across categories to provide a simpler

model.

7.12 All “non-completes” were deleted from Samples ‘A’ and ‘B’ and a predicted probability of completion was

scored on the “completes” in each sample, using the model described above. These probabilities were

then inverted to give a second, non-response, level of weighting. The net effect was to weight Sample

A and B to correct for differential response rates resulting from the above variable.

Stage 3 – Final Composite weights

7.13 A composite weighting variable was created from Stages 1 & 2, for completes only, and rescaled to

ensure the weighted and unweighted bases for completes in Sample ‘A’ and ‘B’ were identical.

7.14 Trimming was applied to the largest weights to ensure that weights were capped at 5. This only applied

to approximately the top 2% of cases. The trimmed weights were then rescaled separately within Sample

‘A’ and ‘B’ to give the correct marginal totals for the base sizes.13 This final weight is the weight used in

the analysis.

HEP weights

7.15 As well as national weights a set of HEP specific weights were calculated to correct for response bias

at HEP level. This was done on the combined completed interviews from Samples ‘A’ and ‘B’. The

process for calculating HEP weights was based on that used for the previous DLHE Longitudinal Survey,

and differentiated depending on the number of interviews completed for that HEP.

7.16 For HEPs with 400 or more DLHE Longitudinal Survey respondents the survey data are weighted so as

to give a close percentage match between the survey and the census in terms of broad subject group,

the part-time/full-time split; and the postgraduate/undergraduate split.

7.17 The broad subject groups in the DLHE Longitudinal Study were: health and welfare; science and

agriculture; engineering, manufacture and construction; social science, business, law and combined;

humanities and arts; education.

7.18 For HEPs with between 200 and 399 DLHE Longitudinal Survey respondents the survey data were

weighted so as to give a close percentage match between the survey and the census in terms of the

part-time/full-time split; and the postgraduate/undergraduate split.

7.19 For HEPs with between 100 and 199 DLHE Longitudinal Survey respondents the survey data are

weighted so as to give a close percentage match between the survey and the census in terms of the

postgraduate/undergraduate split.

7.20 For HEPs with fewer than 100 DLHE Longitudinal Survey respondents no HEP level adjustment has

been made.

13 Note the effect of this final rescaling is to raise some of the weights to slightly over 5, though the range of the final

weights was considered reasonable.



Appendices

Appendix A – DLHE Longitudinal 10/11 questionnaire

Private & Confidential J5364 Date 25/9/15

DLHE Longitudinal Study 10/11 Telephone

Quota category Number of interviews to

achieve

Quota category Number of interviews to

achieve

S Screener

ASK PERSON WHO ANSWERS PHONE

S1 Good morning / afternoon / evening. My name is NAME and I'm calling from IFF Research.

Please can I speak to NAME?

Respondent answers phone 1

CONTINUE

Transferred to respondent 2

Hard appointment 3

MAKE APPOINTMENT

Soft Appointment 4

Respondent has died 5 THANK AND CLOSE

Wrong number (respondent no longer lives / not known at

address) 6 CONTINUE TO S3



Unobtainable number 7

IF SAMPLE HAS SECOND

TELEPHONE NUMBER (IF

HASMOBILE=1 &

HASPHONE=1) MOVE TO

‘WRONG NUMBER’ QUEUE

AND SWITCH TO TEL2 AND

RESET TRYCOUNT. WRITE

THAT THIS SWITCH HAS

HAPPENED TO SAMPLE

(TELSWITCH=1?).

Respondent wants reassurances 8 GO TO REASSURANCES

ASK ALL

S2 Good morning / afternoon, my name is NAME, calling from IFF Research, an independent

market research company. We’re conducting a survey on behalf of the Higher Education

Statistics Agency (HESA) speaking with the class of 2010/11 and would like to find out what

you have been doing since finishing your [INSERT QUALIFICATION FROM SAMPLE] course at

[TEXT SUBSTITUTION: 10/11 HEI from sample] in 2010/11.

The interview should take about 10 minutes. Is now a convenient time to talk?

Continue 1 GO TO SECTION A

Hard appointment 2

MAKE APPOINTMENT

Soft Appointment 3

Refused 4 GO TO S6

Did not graduate from HE in 2010/11 5 GO TO S12

Respondent has died 6

THANK AND CLOSE

Has already completed online 7

Respondent wants reassurances 8 GO TO REASSURANCES

Respondent would like to be interviewed in Welsh 9

SEND RECORD TO WELSH

QUEUE AND GO TO

S2WELSH

Respondent wants reassurance email 10

COLLECT EMAIL AND

ARRANGE APPOINTMENT

DS: SEND AUTOMATIC

EMAIL



REASSURANCES TO USE IF NECESSARY

The interview will take around 10 minutes to complete.

We are interested in speaking to people who completed all types of courses at Higher Education

institutions, not just people who were completing their first degree. This includes people who were

studying towards qualifications other than degrees, people who had already completed previous HE

courses and people who did not start the HE course straight from school or college.

Your details were given to us by your University / College.

Please note that all data will be reported in aggregate form and your answers will not be reported to

our client in any way that would allow you to be identified.

If respondent wishes to confirm validity of survey or get more information about aims and objectives,

they can call:

MRS: Market Research Society on 0500396999

IFF: Helen Wrathall or Sarah Coburn: 0207 250 3035

Matthew Ashman at HESA: 01242 211105



ASK IF WANT TO COMPLETE IN WELSH (S2=9)

S2Welsh We will try our best for someone to call you back and complete the survey in Welsh.

THANK AND CLOSE

ASK IF WRONG NUMBER (S1=6)

S3 Do you have a forwarding number for [name from sample]?

Yes (RECORD NEW NUMBER) 1

OVER-WRITE EXISTING

NUMBER ON SAMPLE,

RESET TRYCOUNT TO 0

AND SEND TO ‘RECALL’

QUEUE

No 2

THANK AND CLOSE

IF SAMPLE HAS SECOND

TELEPHONE NUMBER (IF

HASMOBILE=1 &

HASPHONE=1) MOVE TO

‘WRONG NUMBER’ QUEUE

AND SWITCH TO TEL2

AND RESET TRYCOUNT.

WRITE THAT THIS SWITCH

HAS HAPPENED TO

SAMPLE (TELSWITCH=1?).

IF SAMPLE ONLY HAS

ONE TELEPHONE

NUMBER (HASMOBILE=0

OR HASPHONE=0) SEND

TO ‘WRONG NUMBER’

QUEUE.

Respondent wants reassurances 3 SHOW REASSURANCES

S4 DELETED

S5 DELETED

IF REFUSED (S2=4)

S6 Are you willing for us to check your contact details and pass them to [TEXT SUBSTITUTION:

name of 13/14 HEI from sample], if they are different to the ones we already hold for you, so

that they can update their records?

These contact details may be used by your institution to undertake further research or to

contact you with information or news about the institution in the future.

Yes - willing for contact details to be passed on 1 CONTINUE TO S7

No - not willing 2 GO TO S11



IF WILLING FOR DETAILS TO BE PASSED BACK (S6=1)

S7 Is your name [DISPLAY CONTACT NAME]?

Yes 1

No - incorrect (RECORD CORRECT NAME) 2

Refused 3

S8 What is your postal address?

RECORD CORRECT ADDRESS LINE 1



RECORD POSTCODE

S9 Is your email address [DISPLAY CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS]?

Yes 1

No - incorrect (RECORD CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS) 2

Refused 3

IF NO EMAIL ADDRESS

What is your email address?

WRITE IN EMAIL ADDRESS

S10 Is the best number to contact you on [DISPLAY TEL NUMBER]?

Yes 1

No - incorrect (RECORD CORRECT TEL NUMBER) 2

Refused 3



ASK IF REFUSED (S2=4)

S11 Would you be willing to complete the survey online instead?

Yes 1

COLLECT EMAIL IF S9=3 OR

S6=2

DS: SEND INITIAL EMAIL

INVITE TO RESPONDENT.

IF S9=1 USE EMAIL

ADDRESS ON SAMPLE

IF S9=2 USE EMAIL

ADDRESS COLLECTED AT

S9

IF S9=3 OR S6=2 USE EMAIL

ADDRESS COLLECTED

HERE.

THEN SEND SAMPLE TO

SPECIFIC OUTCOME

(‘POSSIBLE ONLINE’) IN

‘UNUSABLE’ QUEUE.

No 2

SEND SAMPLE TO

‘REFUSED’ QUEUE.

THANK AND CLOSE

ASK IF HAPPY TO COMPLETE ONLINE (S11=1)

S11a Thank you. An email will be sent to you directly inviting you to take part in the online survey.

THANK AND CLOSE

ASK IF DID NOT GRADUATE FROM HEI IN 2010/11 (S2=5)

S12 Just to check, you did not complete a course of any type at an HE institution in 2010/11?

ADD IF NECESSARY: We are interested in speaking to people who completed all types of

courses at Higher Education institutions, not just people who were completing their first

degree or HE course. This includes people who were studying towards qualifications other

than degrees, people who had already completed previous HE courses and people who did not

start the HE course straight from school or college.

PROMPT AS NECESSARY: We have been advised by the Higher Education Statistics Agency

(HESA) that you completed a [TEXT SUB: QUALIFICATION] at [TEXT SUB: previous name of

10/11 institution].

Did not graduate from HE in 2010/11 1

THANK AND CLOSE- SEND

SAMPLE TO SEPARATE

‘DID NOT GRADUATE’

OUTCOME IN UNUSABLE

QUEUE

Did graduate from HE in 2010/11 2 GO BACK TO S2



Section A: What were you doing on 24 November 2014?

I would like to start by asking a few questions about what you were doing on 24 November

2014.

ASK ALL

Q1 On 24 November 2014 were you...?

If you were on maternity or paternity leave but were still on the payroll of your employer please count

this as both employed and doing something else

READ OUT, MULTICODE

Employed, either full-time or part-time (including self-

employed, freelance, voluntary work or other unpaid

work)

1

NB: DO NOT

ALLOW BOTH CODE

1 AND 2 TO BE

SELECTED Unemployed and looking for work 2

Engaged in study, training or registered as a research

student 3

Developing a professional portfolio or creative practice

with a view to starting a business / becoming freelance 4

Doing something else (e.g. retired, travelling, maternity

leave). Please type in below 5

ASK IF MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE SELECTED AT Q1

IF JUST ONE RESPONSE SELECTED AT Q1 AUTOMATICALLY CODE THIS TO Q2 AND GO TO

ROUTING BEFORE Q3

Q2 Which one of these do you regard as your MAIN activity?

PROMPT AS NECESSARY, SINGLE CODE

Employed, whether full-time or part-time (including self-

employed, freelance, voluntary work or other unpaid work) 1

SCRIPT TO

SHOW

OPTIONS

SELECTED

AT Q1

Unemployed and looking for work 2

Engaged in study, training or registered as a research student 3

Developing a professional portfolio or creative practice with a

view to starting a business / becoming freelance 4

[TEXT SUBSTITUTION: OTHER ACTIVITY FROM Q1/5] 5



IF EMPLOYED ON 24 November 2014 (Q1=1): ASK SECTION B

Section B: Your employment on 24 November 2014

ASK ALL EMPLOYED (Q1=1)

Q3 Were you working in more than one job or occupation on 24 November 2014? Please include

all work, including any work which was part-time, self-employed, freelance, voluntary or

unpaid.

Yes 1 GO TO Q4

No 2 GO TO Q5

ASK ALL WITH MORE THAN ONE JOB (Q3=1)

Q4 How many jobs did you have on 24 November 2014? Please include all work, including any

work which was part-time, self-employed, freelance, voluntary or unpaid.

WRITE IN

[TEXT SUBSTITUTION: ALL WITH MORE THAN ONE JOB (Q3=1) The next few questions are

about the job you regarded as your MAIN job on 24 November 2014.]

[TEXT SUBSTITUTION: ALL WITH ONE JOB (Q3=2) The next few questions are about the job

you had on 24 November 2014.

Q5 When did you start the job you had on 24 November 2014?

INTERVIEWER NOTE: If working through an employment agency, we need the time they started at

the placement organisation, NOT at the agency.

CODE MONTH AND YEAR

January 1 Before 2010 1

February 2 2010 2

March 3 2011 3

April 4 2012 4

May 5 2013 5

June 6 2014 6

July 7 Can’t remember 7

August 8

September 9

October 10

November 11

December 12

Can’t remember 13



ASK ALL EMPLOYED ON 24 November 2014 (Q1=1)

Q6 And were you…?

READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

Employed full-time 1

Employed part-time 2

Self-employed or freelance 3

Doing voluntary work / other unpaid work (including internships) 4

ASK ALL HEE FUNDED LEAVERS EMPLOYED ON 24 November 2014 (Q1=1 AND HEE=1)

Q6a Was the organisation you were working for on 24 November 2014 part of the NHS?

SINGLE CODE.

Yes 1

No 2

Don’t know 3


Q7 What is the name of the organisation you were working for [TEXT SUB IF SELF EMPLOYED /

FREELANCE Q6=3: or running] on 24 November 2014?

INTERVIEWER NOTE: If working through an employment agency, need the name of the placement

organisation, NOT the agency name

WRITE IN

ALLOW REFUSED

Q8 What does [TEXT SUBSTITUTION IF ORG NAME GIVEN: ORGANISATION NAME AT Q7; IF

Q7=REFUSED: this company] mainly do?

PROBE AS NECESSARY:

What is the main product or service of this establishment?

What exactly is made or done at this establishment?

What material or machinery does that involve using?

WRITE IN. TO BE CODED TO 4 DIGIT SIC.



Q9 Where was your place of work?

READ OUT, SINGLE CODE

England 1 Go to Q10

Scotland 2 Go to Q10

Wales 3 Go to Q10

Northern Ireland 4 Go to Q10

Outside the United Kingdom (PLEASE SELECT A

COUNTRY FROM THE NEXT SCREEN) 5 Go to Q11

IF PLACE OF WORK BASED IN UK (Q9/1-4)

Q10 What is the first part of the postcode of your place of work?

WRITE IN POSTCODE, ALLOW DON’T KNOW

1st part of post-code (e.g. for Camberwell, type in SE5; for Eastleigh, type in SO50, etc.)

Don’t know 1

Refused 2

IF POSTCODE IS INVALID AFTER ONE FAILED VALIDATION OR RESPONSE = DON’T KNOW OR

REFUSED

What was the town, city or area in which you worked?

WRITE IN, ALLOW DK

INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTION: PLEASE DO NOT RECORD COUNTIES. IF LONDON PLEASE

GIVE THE LOCAL AREA E.G. HOLBORN

Town / City / Area




Q11 What was your job title?

INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTION: Probe for full details, for example, rather than “supervisor”, specify

“customer service supervisor in a bank”.

Q11a And please could you briefly describe your main duties or responsibilities?

INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTION: Probe for a line of detail

- Are they supervising anyone? - If in sales, what are they selling? If in design, what are they designing?

WRITE IN. TO BE CODED TO 5 DIGIT SOC

Q12 Which of the following best describes the basis on which you were employed by [TEXT

SUBSTITUTION IF Q7 IS NOT REFUSED: ORGANISATION NAME AT Q7] on 24 November 2014?


On a permanent or open-ended contract 1

On a fixed-term contract lasting 12 months or longer 2

On a fixed-term contract lasting less than 12 months 3

Self-employed/freelance 4

Setting up or managing your own business 5

Temporarily, through an agency 6

Temporarily, other than through an agency 7

Employed on another basis 8

Don’t know x



Q13 APPROXIMATELY how many people work in the entire organisation (including all branches,

departments, etc.)?


1 to 49 1

50 to 249 2

250 or more 3

Don’t know 4

ASK ALL EXCEPT THOSE WHO WERE DOING VOLUNTARY/UNPAID WORK (Q6=1-3)

Q14 [TEXT SUBSTITUTION ALL EXCEPT THOSE SELF EMPLOYED OR FREELANCE (Q6=1-2 AND

(Q12=1-3 OR 6-8 OR X)): What was your approximate gross pay, before tax? / IF SELF

EMPLOYED OR FREELANCE (Q6=3 OR Q12=4-5): Please indicate the amount of money that

you paid yourself out of the business.] If you cannot give this as an annual amount, please give

this as a monthly, weekly or hourly rate. Please also indicate if you have given a salary in

pounds sterling (£) or in some other currency.

Please just state basic pay; do not include any bonuses or benefits in kind

DP: ALLOW BLANKS FOR THOSE UNWILLING TO ANSWER

Salary Period

Annually 1

Monthly 2

Weekly 3

Currency Hourly 4

Pounds sterling 1 Other (please type in) 5

Other (please type in) 2

SALARY CHECKS: ASK CHECK QUESTION IF RESPONDENT EARNS MORE THAN UPPER LIMIT

OR LESS THAN LOWER LIMIT ACCORDING TO PERIOD TYPE

Upper limit Lower limit

Q14=1 (Annual)

£50,000 £4,000

Q14=2 (Monthly) £4,167 £333

Q14=3 (Weekly) £962 £77

Q14=4 (Hourly) £27 £5

Q14CHKYou just stated that you earned [INSERT Q14 SALARY ANSWER] per [IF Q14PER=1 year; IF

Q14PER=2 month; IF Q14PER=3 week; IF Q14PER=4 hour]. Is this correct?

Yes 1

No - IF NO, GO BACK TO ASK Q14 AGAIN 2



ASK ALL PAID HOURLY (Q14 PERIOD=4)

Q15 Typically, how many hours a week were you paid to work in that job?

CATI CHECK: IF HOURS ≥ 40

Can I just check that you worked [TEXT SUBSTITUTION: NUMBER OF HOURS AT Q15] hours

per week in this job on average?

Yes 1

No - IF NO, GO BACK TO ASK Q15 AGAIN 2

ASK ALL EMPLOYED ON 24 NOVEMBER (Q1=1)

Q16 As far as you are aware, how important were the following factors to [TEXT SUBSTITUTION IF

ORGANISATION NAME AT Q7] [TEXT SUBSTITUTION IF Q7=REFUSED: the company you were

working for on 24th November 2014] when you gained this employment?

READ OUT. SINGLE CODE

IF IMPORTANT PROMPT: Was it important or a formal requirement?

IF NOT IMPORTANT PROMPT: Was it not very important but helped, or not important?

INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELECTS NOT IMPORTANT FOR FINAL STATEMENT,

CHECK WHETHER THEY DID ANY WORK EXPERIENCE AS PART OF THEIR QUALIFICATION

AT ALL

Formal

requirement Important

Not very

important

but helped

Not

important

Don’t

know

Did not do any

work experience

or placement as

part of your

qualification

The subject you studied 1 2 3 4 5

The type of

qualification you

obtained in 2010/2011

(e.g. BA, MSc, PhD, etc)

1 2 3 4 5

The class or grade of

the qualification you

obtained

1 2 3 4 5

Evidence of skills and

competencies 1 2 3 4 5

Any work experience or

work placement that

was part of the

qualification you

obtained in 2010/11

1 2 3 4 5 6



Q17 And how important were the following factors?


IF IMPORTANT PROMPT: Was it important or a formal requirement?

IF NOT IMPORTANT PROMPT: Was it not very important but helped, or not important?

INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELECTS NOT IMPORTANT FOR THIS STATEMENT,

CHECK WHETHER THEY DID OBTAIN ANY FURTHER QUALIFICATIONS / HAD ANY PREVIOUS

(RELEVANT) WORK EXPERIENCE

Formal


Not very

important

but helped

Not

important

Don’t

know

Did not obtain

any further

qualifications

Any qualifications that

you have obtained

after the one you got

in 2010/2011

1 2 3 4 5 6

Formal


Not very

important

but helped

Not

important

Don’t

know

Did not have

any previous

(relevant) work

experience

Relevant work

experience from

previous employment

1 2 3 4 5 6

Q18 [TEXT SUBSTITUTION ALL EXCEPT THOSE SELF EMPLOYED OR FREELANCE (Q6=1-2 OR 4

AND (Q12=1-3 OR 6-8 OR X)): Why did you decide to take the job at [TEXT SUBSTITUTION:

ORGANISATION NAME AT Q7]?]] [IF SELF EMPLOYED (Q6=3 AND (Q12=1-3 OR Q12=6-8 OR X))

OR (Q12=4): Why did you decide to become self-employed?] [IF SETTING UP OWN BUSINESS

(Q12=5) Why did you decide to set up or manage your own business?]

MULTICODE. READ OUT

It fitted into my career plan / it was exactly the type of work I wanted 1

ASK TO ALL EXCEPT SELF-EMPLOYED / FREELANCE OR SETTING UP

OWN BUSINESS (Q6=1-2 OR 4 AND (Q12=1-3 OR 6-8 OR X))

It was the best job offer I received / only job offer I received

2

ASK TO ALL EXCEPT SELF-EMPLOYED / FREELANCE OR SETTING UP

OWN BUSINESS (Q6=1-2 OR 4 AND (Q12=1-3 OR 6-8 OR X))

It was an opportunity to progress in the organisation

3

To gain experience in order to get the type of job I really want 4

To see if I would like the type of work it involved 5

To broaden my experience / to develop general skills 6

DO NOT SHOW IF Q6=4: In order to pay off debts 7

DO NOT SHOW IF Q6=4: In order to earn a living 8

Other 9

Don’t know / can’t remember X



Q19 How did you first find out about this job?

SINGLE CODE. PROMPT AS NECESSARY

Own institution’s career service / website 1

Other careers service/or its website 2

Employer’s website 3

Newspaper/magazine advertisement/or its website 4

High street recruitment agency 5

Online / web-based recruitment agency 6

Already/previously worked for the organisation 7

Professional, work or educational contacts or networks 8

Personal contacts, including family, friends and social networks 9

Speculative approach to employer 10

Other 11

Don’t know / can’t remember X

IF SELF EMPLOYED OR OWN BUSINESS (Q12/4 OR 8): Not applicable 12

ASK IF HAVE MORE THAN ONE JOB (Q3=1) OR IF DEVELOPING A BUSINESS OR PORTFOLIO

ALONGSIDE WORK (Q1=1 AND 4)

Q20 You said earlier that you [TEXT SUB IF MORE THAN ONE JOB (Q3/1) had more than one job on

24 Nov / TEXT SUB IF DEVELOPING BUSINESS OR PORTFOLIO ALONGSIDE WORK (Q1=1 AND

4) were developing a business or portfolio alongside work on 24 Nov). What are the reasons

for you undertaking more than one work role or work-related activity? To what extent is it

because….


A great

extent

Some

extent

Not

at all

Not

relevant

Don't

Know

I am unable to secure any full-time position 1 2 3 X X

Combining two or more jobs is the only way to

get full-time equivalent work in my preferred

type of employment

1 2 3 X X

One of my work roles or activities is allowing

me to develop the skills and/or contacts

necessary to move into the type of work I really

want

1 2 3 X X

It is my choice to do different jobs – I like the

variety 1 2 3 X X

My preferred work is on a freelance basis so I

need other paid work as well 1 2 3 X X

It gives me time to maintain a balance between

work and my personal or family commitments 1 2 3 X X

To supplement my income 1 2 3 X X

IF ENGAGED IN STUDY OR TRAINING ON 24 November 2014 (Q1=3), ASK SECTION C



Section C: Your study, training or research on 24 November 2014

I’m now going to ask a few questions about the study, training or research you were engaged

in on 24 November 2014.

Please only consider what you were doing on 24 November 2014 and NOT any study, training

or research you were engaged in previously, such as your higher education course that you

finished in 2010/11.

Q21 When did you start the course of study, training or research you were engaged in on 24

November 2014?

CODE MONTH AND YEAR

January 1 Before 2010 1

February 2 2010 2

March 3 2011 3

April 4 2012 4

May 5 2013 5

June 6 2014 6

July 7 Can’t remember X

August 8

September 9

October 10

November 11

December 12

Can’t remember X

Q22 Were you studying full-time or part-time?

SINGLE CODE

Full-time 1

Part-time 2

Q23 What is the name of the institution or organisation at which you were registered?

WRITE IN



Q24 What type of organisation was this? Was it a…?

READ OUT. SINGLECODE

University or Higher Education

Institution 1

College of Further Education 2

Private training company 3

Other (type in below) 4

PLEASE TYPE IN TYPE OF ORGANISATION

Q25 Which of the following best describes the type of qualification you were aiming for?


Higher degree mainly by research (PhD, DPhil, MPhil) 1

Higher degree, mainly by taught course (MA, MSc) 2

Postgraduate diploma or certificate (incl. PGCE) 3

First degree (BA, BSc, MEng) 4

Professional qualification (e.g. Chartered Accountancy, Chartered

Institute of Marketing) 5

Other diploma or certificate 6

Other qualification (please type in below) 7

Not aiming for a qualification 8

Don’t know x

Q26 What subject area were you studying, training or researching?

WRITE IN. PROBE FULLY,

PROBE AS NECESSARY for example: if history, ask which period / country / topic covered.



Q27 QUESTION DELETED

Q28 Which ONE of these do you consider to be your MAIN source of funding for this course of

study, training or research?

SINGLE CODE. READ OUT

Grant/Award (e.g. Research Council Studentship/Bursary) 1

My employer provided financial support 2

Self-funded e.g. savings/loan/income 3

Other funding 4

Don’t know x

IF WORKING AND STUDYING ON 24 November 2014 (Q1=1&3)

Q29 Did your employer provide you with any of the following in order to help you with the course

of study, training or research that you were pursuing on 24 November 2014?

READ OUT. MULTI CODE

Paid study leave 1

Training related to my course 2

Mentoring 3

Provision of materials to help with study 4

More flexible or reduced working hours to accommodate study 5

Other (Please type in below) 6

None of the above 7

IF ENGAGED IN STUDY OR TRAINING ON 24 November 2014 (Q1=3)

Q30 Why did you decide to undertake the further study, training or research?

READ OUT. MULTICODE

Because it was a requirement of my employment on 24 November 2014

that I did 1

To develop a broader or more specialist range of skills or knowledge 2

To change or improve my career options 3

Because I was interested in the content of the course 4

Because I had enjoyed my first course and wanted to continue studying 5

I wanted to go on being a student/I wanted to postpone job hunting 6

I had been unable to find a suitable job 7

Other 8

Don’t know x



Section D: What else have you been doing since finishing your course in 2010/11?

ASK ALL

I’d now like to find out a bit more about what you have been doing since completing your [TEXT

SUBSTITUTION: qualification from sample] course at [TEXT SUBSTITUTION: HEI from sample] in

2010/11.

ASK IF EMPLOYED ON 24 November 2014 AND IN ONE JOB (Q3/2)

Q31 Apart from the job that you have already told us about, have you had any other jobs between

graduating and 24 November 2014?

ADD AS NECESSARY: If you have changed jobs within an organisation, or were promoted, please count these as SEPARATE jobs. ASK IF EMPLOYED ON 24 November 2014 AND IN MORE THAN ONE JOB (Q3/1)

You’ve already told us that you had [INSERT NUMBER OF JOBS FROM Q4] on 24 November

2014. Apart from these have you had any other jobs between graduating and 24 November

2014?

ASK IF NOT EMPLOYED 24 November 2014 (Q1 NOT 1)

Have you had any jobs between graduating and 24 November 2014?

Please include any part-time, self-employed, freelance, voluntary or other unpaid work that you

have had.

ADD AS NECESSARY: If you have undertaken consecutive periods of employment through one

or more temping agencies please count this as ONE job

Yes 1 ASK Q32

No 2 GO TO Q33

Don’t know 3

ASK ALL WHO HAVE HAD ANY JOBS SINCE GRADUATING (Q31=1)

Q32 How many other jobs have you had between graduating and 24 November 2014?

ADD AS NECESSARY: If you have changed jobs within an organisation, or were promoted,

please count these as SEPARATE jobs.

ADD AS NECESSARY: If you have undertaken consecutive periods of employment through one

or more temping agencies please count this as ONE job

WRITE IN NUMBER_________ (0-99)

ALLOW DK.

SINGLE CODE



ASK ALL

Q33 Have you ever been unemployed and seeking work for a period lasting one month or more

since you graduated in 2010/11?

SINGLE CODE

Yes 1 ASK Q34

No 2 GO TO Q36

Don’t know 3

ASK IF HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED (Q33/1)

Q34 How many separate periods of unemployment lasting one month or more have you had?

SINGLE CODE

One 1

Two 2

Three 3

Four 4

Five 5

More than five (Please write in the number of periods)

6

ASK IF MORE THAN ONE PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT (Q34/2-6)

Q35 How many months would you say these periods of unemployment add up to?

INTERVIEWER NOTE: [TEXT SUB IF Q34=2-6: WE WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY MONTHS IN

TOTAL THESE [INSERT ANSWER FROM Q34] SEPARATE PERIODS OF UNEMPLOYMENT ADD

UP TO

INTERVIEWER NOTE: [TEXT SUB IF Q34=1: WE WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY MONTHS THIS

ONE PERIOD OF UNEMPLOYMENT ADDS UP TO

ASK IF ONLY ONE PERIOD OF UNEMPLOYMENT (Q34/1)

How many months would you say this period of unemployment adds up to?

WRITE IN NUMBER OF MONTHS



ASK ALL

Q36 Did you obtain any qualifications between the time you completed your course at [TEXT

SUBSTITUTION: HEI from sample] in the academic year 2010/11 and 24 November 2014?

[TEXT SUB: IF Q1/3) Please exclude any qualifications gained from any of the courses that you

have already told us about.]

SINGLE CODE.

Yes 1 Go to Q37

No 2 Go to NEXT SECTION

IF OBTAINED FURTHER QUALIFICATIONS (Q36/1)

Q37 How many other separate qualifications did you obtain?

SINGLE CODE.

One 1

Two 2

Three 3

More than three (please type in how many qualifications you obtained below) 4

Q38 What was the highest level of qualification you obtained between graduating from your [TEXT

SUBSTITUTION: course from sample] course in the academic year 2010/11 and 24 November

2014?

READ OUT, SINGLECODE

Higher degree mainly by research (PhD, DPhil, MPhil) 1

Higher degree, mainly by taught course (MA, MSc) 2

Postgraduate diploma or certificate (incl. PGCE) 3

First degree (BA, BSc, MEng) 4

Professional qualification (e.g. Chartered Accountancy,

Chartered Institute of Marketing) 5

Other diploma or certificate 6

Other qualification (please type in below) 7

Not aiming for a qualification 8

Don’t know x



Q39 And what was the subject area of qualification?

WRITE IN. PROBE FULLY,

PROBE AS NECESSARY for example: if history, ask which period / country / topic covered.

Q40 And how did you MAINLY fund your studies for this qualification? Was it by…?

READ OUT, SINGLECODE

Grant/award (e.g. Research Council Studentship /

Bursary) 1

Employer provided financial support 2

Self-funded e.g. Savings / loan / income 3

Other funding 4

Don’t know X



ASK ALL

Section E – Satisfaction and skills

Thank you for describing what you have been doing since completing your [TEXT

SUBSTITUTION: qualification obtained from sample] course. Thinking back to that course….

Q41 If you were now to choose whether or not to do the course leading to your [TEXT

SUBSTITUTION: qualification obtained from sample] qualification, how likely or unlikely is it that

you would…?


Very

likely Likely

Not

very

Likely

Not

likely

at all

Don't

Know

Do a different subject? 1 2 3 4 5

Study at a different institution? 1 2 3 4 5

Work towards a different type of

qualification 1 2 3 4 5

Decide to do something completely

different? 1 2 3 4 5

Q42 Given what you have told us so far, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your career to

date?


Very satisfied 1

Fairly satisfied 2

Not very satisfied 3

Not at all satisfied 4

Don’t know 5

Not applicable 6

Q43 Thinking about your overall experience of the course you completed in 2010/11, to what extent

do you agree or disagree that the course was good value for money?


Strongly agree 1

Agree 2

Neither agree nor disagree 3

Disagree 4

Strongly disagree 5

Don’t know 6



The following questions now focus on your general higher education experience. This includes

the course you completed in 2010/11, as well any extra-curricular activities you were involved

in during this time (including placements undertaken while you were studying).

Q44A How well did this higher education experience prepare you for or help you progress your career

aspirations?


Very well 1

Quite well 2

Not very well 3

Not at all 4

Don’t know 5

ASK ALL WHO DID NOT COMPLETE RESEARCH DEGREE PROGRAMME IN 2010/11 (from

sample)

Q44AA Still considering your higher education experience, which includes the course you completed

in 2010/11 as well as any extra-curricular activities and work placements you undertook in this

time, to what extent has your higher education experience enabled you to…?


A

great

extent

Some

extent

Not

at

all

Don’t

know

Not

worked

since

finishing

course

Not

relevant

Be innovative in the workplace 1 2 3 4 5

Solve problems in your work 1 2 3 4 5

Communicate effectively in your work 1 2 3 4 5

Make good decisions in your work 1 2 3 4 5

Work effectively with others 1 2 3 4 5

Take initiative and personal

responsibility in your work 1 2 3 4 5

Make effective use of information and

communication technology in your

work

1 2 3 4 5 6

Work effectively with numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6



ASK ALL IN WORK EXCEPT SELF EMPLOYED ON 24 November 2014 (Q6=1/2/4)

Q44AB To what extent does your employer enable you to use the skills you gained during your

higher education experience?

ADD IF NECESSARY: By higher education experience we are including the course you

completed in 2010/11, as well any extra-curricular activities you were involved in during this

time (including placements undertaken while you were studying).


A great extent 1

Some extent 2

Not at all 3

Don’t know 4

ASK ALL

Q44B And still considering your higher education experience, how well did this prepare you for being

self employed or setting up your own business?

ADD IF NECESSARY: By higher education experience we are including the course you

completed in 2010/11, as well any extra-curricular activities you were involved in during this

time (including placements undertaken while you were studying).


Very well 1

Quite well 2

Not very well 3

Not at all 4

Don’t know 5

Have never considered becoming self employed / setting up own business 6



Section F – Research Degree

ASK ALL WHO COMPLETED RESEARCH DEGREE PROGRAMME IN 2010/11 (from sample)

Q45TEL Thinking about the research degree you took in 2010/11, why did you decide to undertake it?

READ OUT, MULTICODE

Q46TEL And what was the main reason you decided to undertake it?


Other

reason

Main

reason

I was interested in the subject 1 1

I was interested in research 2 2

I wanted to go on being a student/I wanted to postpone job

hunting 3 3

I was awarded a funded studentship 4 4

I was encouraged or required to do so by my employer at the

time 5 5

I was encouraged to do so by previous tutors/lecturers. 6 6

I wanted an academic career. 7 7

I thought it would improve my career prospects more broadly. 8 8

It was essential to get into the area of employment I want(ed)

to work in. 9 9

Other (Please type in below)

10 10

Q47 Did you receive any funding towards these research studies in terms of fees or maintenance,

or were you self-funded?

ADD AS NECESSARY: Please include any accommodation costs under maintenance.

READ OUT, SINGLE CODE.

.

Received funding towards fees 1

Received funding towards maintenance 2

Received funding towards both fees and maintenance 3

No funding / Self-funding 4



ASK ALL IN RECEIPT OF FUNDING FOR FEES (Q47=1 OR 3)

Q48 Firstly, could you tell me the main source of funding for your fees?


ASK ALL IN RECEIPT OF FUNDING FOR FEES (Q47=1 OR 3)

Q49 From which other sources did you receive funding for your fees?

PROMPT AS NECESSARY, MULTICODE

Main source

Other

sources

A) The institution where I studied

B) Research Councils:

Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC)

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research

Council (BBSRC)

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

(EPSRC)

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

Medical Research Council (MRC)

Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

C) UK Educational / Scientific charity (including The

Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, British Heart

Foundation or Other UK Educational / Scientific charity):

D) Other competitively-awarded scholarship or award

(Please specify)

E) EU / EC funded

G) Support from my employer or an industry body

F) Other (Please type in below)

G) No other sources of funding



ASK ALL IN RECEIPT OF FUNDING FOR MAINTENANCE (Q47=2 OR 3)

Q50 What was the main source of funding for your maintenance?


ASK ALL IN RECEIPT OF FUNDING FOR MAINTENANCE (Q47=2 OR 3)

Q51 From which other sources did you receive funding for your maintenance?

PROMPT AS NECESSARY, MULTICODE

Main source

(Please

select one

option only)

Other

sources

(Please

select all that

apply)

A) The institution where I studied

B) Research Councils:

Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC)

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research

Council (BBSRC)

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

(EPSRC)

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

Medical Research Council (MRC)

Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

C) UK Educational / Scientific charity (including The

Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, British Heart

Foundation or Other UK Educational / Scientific charity):

D) Other competitively-awarded scholarship or award

(Please specify)

E) EU / EC funded

G) Support from my employer or an industry body

F) Other (Please type in below)

G) No other sources of funding



Q52 To what extent did your research topic require....?


A

great

extent

Some

extent

Not at

all

Don’t

know

Working on your own 1 2 3 4

Collaborating with others in the same broad

discipline or subject area as yours (e.g.

chemistry, management)

1 2 3 4

Collaborating with others in different disciplines 1 2 3 4

Development of knowledge and skills that cross

other disciplines or subject areas as well as your

own

1 2 3 4

Collaborating with others outside the higher

education research community 1 2 3 4

Work placement(s) or internship(s) 1 2 3 4

Periods of international mobility, i.e. working or

studying in non-UK research team(s) 1 2 3 4

IF EMPLOYED ON 24 NOVEMBER (Q1/1)

Q53 In the job that you were doing on 24 November 2014, how often do you / did you...?


Most

of the

time

Some of

the time Occasionally

Not at

all

Don’t

know

A) Conduct research 1 2 3 4 5

B) Interpret or critically evaluate research

findings 1 2 3 4

5

C) Draw on the detailed knowledge on which

your research degree was based 1 2 3 4

5

D) Use your general disciplinary knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

E) Use the research skills you developed as a

research student 1 2 3 4

5

F) Use the generic skills you developed as a

research student 1 2 3 4

5

G) Work autonomously 1 2 3 4 5

H) Work as part of a team 1 2 3 4 5

I) Work under close supervision 1 2 3 4 5

J) Have responsibility for supervising the work

of others 1 2 3 4

5



ASK ALL RESEARCH DEGREE FROM SAMPLE

Q54 To what extent has your PhD / Research degree experience enabled you to...?


A

great

extent

Some

extent

Not at

all

Don’t

know

Have

not

worked

since

finishing

course

Be innovative in the workplace 1 2 3 4 5

Make a difference in the workplace 1 2 3 4 5

Change organisational culture and/or working

practices 1 2 3 4 5

Influence the work of others in the workplace 1 2 3 4 5

Access immediate or short-term job

opportunities in your chosen career 1 2 3 4 5

Enhance your credibility or standing in the

workplace 1 2 3 4 5

Progress towards your long term career

aspirations 1 2 3 4

Enhance your social and intellectual capabilities

beyond employment 1 2 3 4

Enhance the quality of your life generally 1 2 3 4

Other impact (Please specify) 1 2 3 4 5

Q55 The Research Councils may like to contact you for further research purposes, the results of

which are used to inform policy development and will be published to help inform individuals’

career decisions. Would you be happy for us to pass on your responses and contact details

in order for this to happen?

Yes - willing for RCUK to contact 1

No - not willing 2



Section G – Contact information

ASK ALL

Q56 Are you willing for IFF Research to pass on your contact details to [TEXT SUBSTITUTION: name of

HEI from sample], if they are different from the ones we already hold for you, so that they can

update their records?

These contact details may be used by your institution to undertake further research or to

contact you with information or news about the institution in the future.

SINGLE CODE

Yes - willing for contact details to be passed on 1

No - not willing 2

ASK ALL

Q57 Would you be happy for us to pass the information you have given us on to [TEXT SUBSTITUTION:

name of HEI from sample] along with your name? They may like to contact you in connection

with this information. Would you be prepared for this to happen?


Yes - willing for information to be passed on 1

Yes – willing for information to be passed on and to be

contacted in connection with it by university/college 2

No – not willing for information to be passed on 3

ASK ALL WHO DID NOT COMPLETE RESEARCH DEGREE PROGRAMME IN 2010/11 (from

sample)

Q58 Are you willing to be invited to take part in future research into graduates’ training,

development and employment by one of our survey partners, or organisations working on their

behalf?

Our partners are the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and higher education

funding bodies in the UK. We would need to share your contact details but these would not be

used for any purpose other than to invite you into the research.

PLEASE SELECT ONE OPTION ONLY

Yes – pass on details for the stated purpose(s) 1

No – do not pass on details 2



ASK ALL

Q57A Did you participate at any point in Futuretrack?

ADD AS NECESSARY: A number of your fellow students will have been part of the Futuretrack

study which is carried out across four stages and tracks students up until getting their first

job. It is a large scale survey which tracks over 50,000 students who filled in their UCAS

application in 2005/06.

Yes – participated in Futuretrack 1

No - did not take part in Futuretrack 2

ASK ALL IF PARTICIPATED IN FUTURETRACK (Q57A=1)

Q57B Will you give permission for the answers you have provided to this survey to be linked to the

information you provided to Futuretrack and for the combined anonymised data to be used for

analysis by both the Futuretrack project and users of the data from this survey?


Yes - willing for answers to be linked and for

data to be used for analysis by the Futuretrack

projects and users of data from this survey?

1

No - not willing for answers to be linked 2

IF WILLING FOR ANY REASON (Q55/1 OR Q56/1 OR Q57/2 OR Q58/1)

Q59 You have said you are willing to be recontacted. You will only be recontacted for the purposes

you have given permission for. Can we just check whether the contact details we have for you

are correct?

Your name: DISPLAY CONTACT NAME. Is that correct?

Yes – correct 1

No – incorrect (Please type in correct

name) 2

IF HAVE EMAIL (FROM SAMPLE)

Your email address: DISPLAY CONTACT ADDRESS. Is that correct?

Yes – correct 1

No – incorrect (Please type in correct

email address) 2

IF NO EMAIL ADDRESS

What is your email address?

WRITE IN EMAIL ADDRESS



IF WILLING FOR ANY REASON (Q55/1 OR Q56/1 OR Q57/2 OR Q58/1)

What is the best postal address to contact you on?




RECORD POSTCODE

ASK ALL

And what is this the best number by which to contact you?

WRITE IN TELEPHONE NUMBER

If you are interested in viewing the results of the survey, they will be available to view in Autumn

2015 through this link: www.hesa.ac.uk/C10019

THANK RESPONDENT AND CLOSE INTERVIEW

I declare that this survey has been carried out under IFF instructions and within the rules of the MRS Code

of Conduct.

Interviewer signature: Date:

Finish time: Interview Length mins



Appendix B – Initial email invitation

Dear <fname>,

<NAME OF INSTITUTION>: The class of 2010/11 [IF DOCTORAL: What are doctoral graduates doing now? We’d like you to take part in an important survey tracking the career paths of those who left higher education in the 2010/11 academic year. Findings from the research will help improve the support available to prospective doctoral students and graduates in the future, whilst highlighting the diverse range of opportunities open to them.]

[REMAINING STUDENTS: What are graduates doing now? We’d like you to take part in an important survey tracking the career paths of those who left higher education in the 2010/11 academic year. Findings from the research will help improve the opportunities and support available to prospective students and graduates in the future.] To complete the survey please follow this link:

Or visit here: www.iffresearch.com/hesa and enter your Survey ID: XXXX The research is being conducted by IFF Research, on behalf of the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). For more information about IFF and HESA and to find out more about the survey please go to www.graduate-destinations.co.uk. Alternatively you can call the IFF Research helpline on 0800 054 2377 or email [email protected]. If for any reason you are having difficulty accessing the survey, please click here. Thank you in advance for your help with this important study. Best wishes Andrew Skone James Research Manager

http://iffresearch-dm.com/t/2K4-10H5L-2HLZLO-E5JVN-1/c.aspx



http://iffresearch-dm.com/t/2K4-10H5L-2HLZLO-E5JVM-1/c.aspx



Appendix C – Text message invitation

‘Cold’ text – those who have not received an e-mail

Class of 10/11: What have you been doing since leaving uni? Share your experiences in this important

survey www.iffresearch.com/hesa/a123456xxx

‘Warm’ text – those who have received an e-mail, but who have not replied to the survey

Class of 10/11: Remember to tell us what you’ve been doing since leaving uni. Share your experiences

here www.iffresearch.com/hesa/a123456xxx

http://www.iffresearch.com/hesa/a123456xxx

http://www.iffresearch.com/hesa/a123456xxx



Appendix D – Letter invitation

<contact> <add1> <add2> <add3> <add4> <add5> [Date] December 2014 <postcode> <country> Survey ID: <ID>

Dear <fname>,

<NAME OF INSTITUTION>: The class of 2010/11

[IF DOCTORAL: What are doctoral graduates doing now? We’d like you to take part in a survey which will track the career paths of those who left higher education in the 2010/11 academic year. Findings from the research will help improve the support available to prospective doctoral students and graduates in the future, whilst highlighting the diverse range of opportunities open to them.]

[REMAINING STUDENTS: What are graduates doing now? We’d like you to take part in a survey which will track the career paths of those who left higher education in the 2010/11 academic year. Findings from the research will help improve the opportunities and support available to prospective students and graduates in the future.]

To complete the survey, please go to www.iffresearch.com/hesa and enter your Survey ID: <ID>

The research is being conducted by IFF Research, on behalf of the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). For more information about IFF and HESA and to find out more about the survey please go to www.graduate-destinations.co.uk. Alternatively you can call the IFF Research helpline on 0800 054 2377 or email [email protected].

This is the fifth survey of its kind to be commissioned by HESA and undertaken by IFF Research. Since the first survey which took place during Winter 2006/2007, the career destinations of around 180,000 leavers from higher education have been tracked. You can read the key findings from any of these surveys by visiting www.hesa.ac.uk/DLHE_Longitudinal.

Thank you in advance for your participation, Andrew Skone James Research Manager IFF Research

http://www.iffresearch.com/hesa





http://www.hesa.ac.uk/DLHE_Longitudinal



Appendix E – Confidence Intervals for Key Survey Sub-Groups

Table 7.1: Statistical error for findings by gender

File A

Completes

File A

Statistical

Error

File B

Completes

File B

Statistical

Error

Combined

Completes

Combined

Statistical

Error

Male 20,040 0.7% 11,115 0.9% 31,155 0.6%

Female 32,735 0.5% 17,765 0.7% 50,495 0.4%

Table 7.2: Statistical error for findings by age

File A

Completes

File A

Statistical

Error

File B

Completes

File B

Statistical

Error

Combined

Completes

Combined

Statistical

Error

25 or

under 18,020 0.7% 11,035 0.9% 29,055 0.6%

26 – 30 15,810 0.8% 8,575 1.1% 24,385 0.6%

31 – 40 8,660 1.0% 3,705 1.6% 12,360 0.9%

41 – 50 6,120 1.3% 2,915 1.8% 9,035 1.0%

51 + 4,165 1.5% 2,645 1.9% 6,810 1.2%

Table 7.3: Statistical error for findings by ethnicity

File A

Completes

File A

Statistical

Error

File B

Completes

File B

Statistical

Error

Combined

Completes

Combined

Statistical

Error

Any White 40,950 0.5% 25,250 0.6% 66,200 0.4%

Any Black 2,560 1.9% 810 3.4% 3,370 1.7%

Any Asian 4,705 1.4% 1,285 2.7% 5,990 1.3%

Any Mixed 2,295 2.0% 320 5.5% 2,615 1.9%

Other Ethnic

background. 1,085 3.0% 0 - 1,085 3.0%



Table 7.4: Statistical error for findings by type of qualification

File A

Completes

File A

Statistical

Error

File B

Completes

File B

Statistical

Error

Combined

Completes

Combined

Statistical

Error

First Degree 31,840 0.6% 18,975 0.7% 50,815 0.4%

Higher degree

research 3,140 1.8% 0 - 3,140 1.8%

Higher degree

taught 5,925 1.3% 5,055 1.4% 10,980 0.9%

Other

postgraduate 4,005 1.6% 2,455 2.0% 6,455 1.2%

Other

undergraduate 7,865 1.1% 2,395 2.0% 10,255 1.0%

Table 7.5: Statistical error for findings by type of subject studied

File A

Completes

File A

Statistical

Error

File B

Completes

File B

Statistical

Error

Combined

Completes

Combined

Statistical

Error

Medicine and

Dentistry 2,330 2.0% 90 10.3% 2,420 2.0%

Subjects Allied

to Medicine 12,210 0.9% 460 4.6% 12,670 0.9%

Biological

Sciences 7,310 1.2% 1,960 2.2% 9,270 1.0%

Veterinary

Sciences,

Agriculture and

related subjects

515 4.3% 455 4.6% 970 3.1%

Physical

Sciences 3,440 1.7% 1,170 2.9% 4,615 1.4%

Mathematical

and Computer

Sciences

3,890 1.6% 1,535 2.5% 5,425 1.3%

Engineering 2,275 2.1% 1,555 2.5% 3,830 1.6%

Technologies 380 5.0% 205 6.8% 585 4.0%

Architecture,

Building and

Planning

1,090 3.0% 780 3.5% 1,870 2.3%

Social studies 3,325 1.7% 3,975 1.6% 7,300 1.2%

Law 1,090 3.0% 1,285 2.7% 2,375 2.0%

Business and

Administrative

studies

3,670 1.6% 3,700 1.6% 7,370 1.1%

Mass

Communications

and

Documentation

815 3.4% 920 3.2% 1,735 2.4%



File A

Completes

File A

Statistical

Error

File B

Completes

File B

Statistical

Error

Combined

Completes

Combined

Statistical

Error

Linguistics,

Classics and

related subjects

1,370 2.7% 1,910 2.2% 3,280 1.7%

European

Languages,

Literature and

related subjects

1,330 2.7% 305 5.6% 1,640 2.4%

Eastern, Asiatic,

African,

American and

Australasian

Languages,

Literature and

related subjects

195 7.0% 50 13.6% 245 6.3%

Historical and

Philosophical

studies

1,395 2.6% 1,990 2.2% 3,380 1.7%

Creative Arts

and Design 2,960 1.8% 2,795 1.9% 5,760 1.3%

Education 2,840 1.8% 3,160 1.7% 6,000 1.3%

Combined

subjects 340 5.3% 570 4.1% 910 3.3%

Table 7.6: Statistical error for findings by HEP location

File A

Completes

File A

Statistical

Error

File B

Completes

File B

Statistical

Error

Combined

Completes

Combined

Statistical

Error

England 44,500 0.5% 24,905 0.6% 69,405 0.4%

Scotland 3,190 1.7% 2,225 2.1% 5,415 1.3%

Wales 3,055 1.8% 1,550 2.5% 4,600 1.4%

Northern

Ireland 2,030 2.2% 200 6.9% 2,230 2.1%



Appendix F(1) – Response Rates by Key Demographics – Overall

Table 7.7: Overall response rate by gender

Total Sample Total Contactable Total Completes Response Rate

Male 140,825 120,840 31,155 26%

Female 202,155 175,170 50,495 29%

Table 7.8: Overall response rate by age


25 or under 126,635 110,050 29,055 26%

26 - 30 110,605 94,795 24,385 26%

31 - 40 52,510 45,000 12,360 27%

41 - 50 32,515 28,250 9,035 32%

51 + 20,700 17,900 6,810 38%

Unknown 25 20 5 26%

Table 7.9: Overall response rate by ethnicity

Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total

Completes Response Rate

Any White 276,975 238,335 66,200 28%

Any Black 14,755 13,270 3,370 25%

Any Asian 27,755 24,445 5,990 24%

Any Mixed 8,545 7,495 2,615 35%

Other Ethnic

background 3,210 2,870 1,085 38%

Not known / Information

refused / Blank 11,735 9,600 2,395 25%



Table 7.10: Overall response rate by course type

Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


First Degree 210,655 184,650 50,815 28%

Higher degree

research 7,900 6,635 3,140 47%

Higher degree

taught 46,715 39,970 10,980 27%

Other postgraduate 30,370 25,470 6,455 25%

Other

undergraduate 47,345 39,285 10,255 26%

Table 7.11: Overall response rate by subject area

Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


Medicine and Dentistry 7,730 6,585 2,420 37%

Subjects Allied to Medicine 35,770 31,355 12,670 40%

Biological Sciences 31,520 27,565 9,270 34%

Veterinary Sciences,

Agriculture and related

subjects

3,840 3,295 970 29%

Physical Sciences 14,530 12,375 4,615 37%

Mathematical and Computer

Sciences 20,055 17,270 5,425 31%

Engineering 15,955 13,390 3,830 29%

Technologies 2,720 2,305 585 25%

Architecture, Building and

Planning 10,585 8,980 1,870 21%

Social studies 34,735 30,125 7,300 24%

Law 14,235 12,275 2,375 19%

Business and Administrative

studies 41,085 35,085 7,370 21%

Mass Communications and

Documentation 9,335 8,210 1,735 21%

Linguistics, Classics and

related subjects 14,535 12,690 3,280 26%

European Languages,

Literature and related

subjects

5,140 4,445 1,640 37%

Eastern, Asiatic, African,

American and Australasian

Languages, Literature and

related subjects

935 785 245 31%

Historical and Philosophical

studies 14,250 12,250 3,380 28%



Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


Creative Arts and Design 31,765 27,595 5,760 21%

Education 31,480 26,845 6,000 22%

Combined subjects 2,785 2,590 910 35%

Table 7.12: Overall response rate by HEP location

Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


England 293,025 253,515 69,405 27%

Scotland 25,345 20,460 5,415 26%

Wales 17,485 15,445 4,600 30%

Northern

Ireland 7,125 6,590 2,230 34%



Appendix F(2) – Response Rates by Key Demographics – Sample ‘A’



Male 46,565 45,275 20,040 44%

Female 75,365 73,420 32,735 45%



25 or under 40,140 39,220 18,020 46%

26 - 30 39,625 38,555 15,810 41%

31 - 40 21,615 20,930 8,660 41%

41 - 50 12,895 12,545 6,120 49%

51 + 7,645 7,435 4,165 56%

Unknown 5 5 5 67%


Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


Any White 92,025 89,425 40,950 46%

Any Black 7,035 6,885 2,560 37%

Any Asian 11,385 11,165 4,705 42%

Any Mixed 5,530 5,405 2,295 42%

Other Ethnic

background 2,930 2,870 1,085 38%


refused / Blank 3,025 2,945 1,180 40%




Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


First Degree 71,645 70,295 31,840 45%

Higher degree

research 6,955 6,635 3,140 47%

Higher degree

taught 13,970 13,670 5,925 43%


Other

undergraduate 20,225 19,220 7,865 41%


Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total







subjects

1,060 1,025 515 50%



Sciences 8,520 8,305 3,890 47%

Engineering 5,435 5,260 2,275 43%

Technologies 835 810 380 47%


Planning 2,675 2,595 1,090 42%

Social studies 7,465 7,295 3,325 46%

Law 2,930 2,865 1,090 38%


studies 9,300 9,060 3,670 40%


Documentation 1,885 1,865 815 44%



European Languages,


subjects

2,970 2,915 1,330 46%




related subjects

520 505 195 38%


studies 2,965 2,870 1,395 49%



Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total



Education 5,965 5,825 2,840 49%

Combined subjects 565 555 340 61%


Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


England 103,075 100,235 44,500 44%

Scotland 7,430 7,055 3,190 45%

Wales 6,705 6,695 3,055 46%

Northern

Ireland 4,720 4,710 2,030 43%



Appendix F(3) – Response Rates by Key Demographics – Sample ‘B’



Male 94,260 75,565 11,115 15%

Female 126,790 101,750 17,765 17%



25 or under 86,490 70,830 11,035 16%

26 - 30 70,980 56,245 8,575 15%

31 - 40 30,895 24,070 3,705 15%

41 - 50 19,620 15,700 2,915 19%

51 + 13,050 10,465 2,645 25%

Unknown 15 15 * 8%



Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


Any White 184,955 148,915 25,250 17%

Any Black 7,720 6,390 810 13%

Any Asian 16,370 13,280 1,285 10%

Any Mixed 3,015 2,085 320 15%

Other Ethnic

background 280 0 - -


refused / Blank 8,710 6,655 1,215 18%




Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


First Degree 139,010 114,355 18,975 17%

Higher degree

research 940 0 - -

Higher degree

taught 32,745 26,295 5,055 19%


Other

undergraduate 27,120 20,070 2,395 12%


Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


Medicine and Dentistry 1,350 515 90 17%

Subjects Allied to Medicine 6,480 2,905 460 16%




subjects

2,780 2,275 455 20%



Sciences 11,535 8,965 1,535 17%

Engineering 10,520 8,130 1,555 19%

Technologies 1,885 1,500 205 14%


Planning 7,910 6,385 780 12%

Social studies 27,265 22,830 3,975 17%

Law 11,305 9,410 1,285 14%


studies 31,785 26,025 3,700 14%


Documentation 7,445 6,345 920 14%



European Languages,


subjects

2,170 1,530 305 20%




related subjects

415 285 50 18%


studies 11,285 9,375 1,990 21%



Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total



Education 25,520 21,015 3,160 15%

Combined subjects 2,220 2,035 570 28%


Total

Sample

Total

Contactable

Total


England 189,945 153,280 24,905 16%

Scotland 17,920 13,405 2,225 17%

Wales 10,780 8,755 1,550 18%

Northern

Ireland 2,405 1,875 200 11%



Appendix G – Online response rate - Sample ‘A’

Table 7.25: Online response rate by gender

Total

Sample

Total Sample with an email

address / mobile number /

postal address

Total


Male 46,565 45,225 6,660 15%

Female 75,365 73,355 11,810 16%

Table 7.26: Online response rate by age

Total

Sample



postal address

Total


25 or

under 40,140 39,200 6,075 15%

26 - 30 39,625 38,500 5,745 15%

31 - 40 21,615 20,915 3,160 15%

41 - 50 12,895 12,535 1,955 16%

51 + 7,645 7,430 1,535 21%

Unknown 5 5 * 17%


Table 7.27: Online response rate by ethnicity

Total

Sample

Total Sample with an

email address /

mobile number /

postal address

Total


Any White 92,025 89,350 14,875 17%

Any Black 7,035 6,880 745 11%

Any Asian 11,385 11,160 1,145 10%

Any Mixed 5,530 5,400 820 15%

Other Ethnic

background 2,930 2,865 335 12%

Not known /

Information

refused / Blank

3,025 2,930 545 19%



Table 7.28: Online response rate by course type

Total

Sample

Total Sample with an

email address / mobile

number / postal

address

Total


First Degree 71,645 70,240 11,190 16%

Higher degree

research 6,955 6,630 1,670 25%

Higher degree

taught 13,970 13,640 2,430 18%

Other

postgraduate 9,135 8,860 1,210 14%

Other

undergraduate 20,225 19,210 1,970 10%

Table 7.29: Online response rate by subject area

Total

Sample

Total Sample

with an email

address /

mobile number

/ postal

address

Total


Medicine and Dentistry 6,380 6,055 815 13%





subjects

1,060 1,025 200 20%


Mathematical and

Computer Sciences 8,520 8,295 1,430 17%

Engineering 5,435 5,255 830 16%



Planning 2,675 2,590 295 11%

Social studies 7,465 7,290 1,225 17%

Law 2,930 2,865 345 12%

Business and

Administrative studies 9,300 9,060 1,210 13%

Mass Communications

and Documentation 1,885 1,865 260 14%


related subjects 3,020 2,950 585 20%

European Languages,


subjects

2,970 2,910 605 21%



Total

Sample

Total Sample

with an email

address /

mobile number

/ postal

address

Total



American and

Australasian Languages,


subjects

520 500 90 18%

Historical and

Philosophical studies 2,965 2,865 585 20%

Creative Arts and Design 6,990 6,865 885 13%

Education 5,965 5,825 840 14%


Table 7.30: Online response rate by HEP location

Total

Sample



postal address

Total


England 103,075 100,145 15,745 16%

Scotland 7,430 7,050 1,140 16%

Wales 6,705 6,690 1,150 17%

Northern

Ireland 4,720 4,705 435 9%



Appendix H – Postal only response rate - Sample ‘A’

Table 7.31: Postal only response rate by gender

Total

Sample

Total postal only

Sample

Total


Male 46,565 935 60 6%

Female 75,365 1,420 135 9%

Table 7.32: Postal only response rate by age

Total

Sample

Total postal only

Sample

Total


25 or

under 40,140 545 40 8%

26 - 30 39,625 860 70 8%

31 - 40 21,615 590 40 7%

41 - 50 12,895 235 25 11%

51 + 7,645 130 20 14%

Unknown 5 * * 100%


Table 7.33: Postal only response rate by ethnicity

Total

Sample

Total postal

only Sample

Total


Any White 92,025 1,790 165 9%

Any Black 7,035 105 5 4%

Any Asian 11,385 195 10 5%

Any Mixed 5,530 85 5 6%

Other Ethnic

background 2,930 55 5 9%


refused / Blank 3,025 130 10 8%



Table 7.34: Postal only response rate by course type

Total

Sample

Total postal only

Sample

Total


First Degree 71,645 1,145 95 8%

Higher degree

research 6,955 400 50 12%

Higher degree

taught 13,970 330 25 7%

Other postgraduate 9,135 150 15 10%

Other

undergraduate 20,225 330 15 5%

Table 7.35: Postal only response rate by subject area

Total

Sample

Total

postal

only

Sample

Total


Medicine and Dentistry 6,380 255 20 7%

Subjects Allied to Medicine 29,290 635 40 6%

Biological Sciences 16,010 240 10 4%


Agriculture and related subjects 1,060 10 * 9%

Physical Sciences 7,150 200 25 14%


Sciences 8,520 130 15 11%

Engineering 5,435 140 10 8%

Technologies 835 10 * 13%


Planning 2,675 25 5 19%

Social studies 7,465 100 5 7%

Law 2,930 40 * 5%


studies 9,300 140 10 6%


Documentation 1,885 15 0 0%


related subjects 3,020 50 10 16%

European Languages,

Literature and related subjects 2,970 110 15 15%




related subjects

520 15 0 0%


studies 2,965 75 10 12%



Total

Sample

Total

postal

only

Sample

Total


Creative Arts and Design 6,990 60 10 13%

Education 5,965 95 10 13%

Combined subjects 565 * 0 0%


Table 7.36: Postal only response rate by HEP location

Total

Sample

Total postal only

Sample

Total


England 103,075 2,075 175 9%

Scotland 7,430 165 10 7%

Wales 6,705 85 5 6%

Northern

Ireland 4,720 35 * 6%




Appendix I – Telephone response rate – Sample ‘A’

Table 7.37: Telephone response rate by gender

Total

Sample

Total Contactable At Start Of

Telephone Fieldwork

Total


Male 46,565 35,990 13,380 37%

Female 75,365 58,565 20,920 36%

Table 7.38: Telephone response rate by age

Total

Sample

Total Contactable At Start

Of Telephone Fieldwork

Total


25 or

under 40,140 32,045 11,945 37%

26 - 30 39,625 30,445 10,065 33%

31 - 40 21,615 16,190 5,495 34%

41 - 50 12,895 10,125 4,165 41%

51 + 7,645 5,745 2,630 46%

Unknown 5 5 5 60%

Table 7.39: Telephone response rate by ethnicity

Total

Sample

Total Contactable At

Start Of Telephone

Fieldwork

Total


Any White 92,025 70,750 26,075 37%

Any Black 7,035 5,725 1,815 32%

Any Asian 11,385 9,370 3,555 38%

Any Mixed 5,530 4,325 1,475 34%

Other Ethnic

background 2,930 2,300 745 32%

Not known /

Information

refused / Blank

3,025 2,085 635 30%



Table 7.40: Telephone response rate by course type

Total

Sample

Total Contactable At

Start Of Telephone

Fieldwork

Total


First Degree 71,645 56,665 20,650 36%

Higher degree

research 6,955 4,080 1,470 36%

Higher degree

taught 13,970 10,210 3,495 34%

Other

postgraduate 9,135 7,300 2,790 38%

Other

undergraduate 20,225 16,300 5,895 36%

Table 7.41: Telephone response rate by subject area

Total

Sample

Total

Contactable At

Start Of

Telephone

Fieldwork

Total



Subjects Allied to

Medicine 29,290 23,160 8,450 36%




subjects

1,060 790 315 40%


Mathematical and


Engineering 5,435 4,020 1,450 36%



Planning 2,675 2,195 790 36%

Social studies 7,465 5,830 2,100 36%

Law 2,930 2,380 745 31%

Business and


Mass Communications




European Languages,


subjects

2,970 2,145 725 34%



Total

Sample

Total

Contactable At

Start Of

Telephone

Fieldwork

Total



American and



subjects

520 370 105 28%

Historical and


Creative Arts and Design 6,990 5,830 2075 36%

Education 5,965 4,825 2000 41%


Table 7.42: Telephone response rate by HEP location

Total

Sample

Total Contactable At Start

Of Telephone Fieldwork

Total


England 103,075 79,250 28,755 36%

Scotland 7,430 5,690 2,055 36%

Wales 6,705 5,320 1,900 36%

Northern

Ireland 4,720 4,295 1,595 37%



Appendix J(1) – Quality of e-mail addresses by key demographics - Sample ‘A’

Table 7.43: Quality of Email addresses by gender

Total Sample with

Email Total Undeliverable

% of Email Sample

undeliverable

Male 40,325 3,395 8%

Female 65,660 5,990 9%

Table 7.44: Quality of Email addresses by age

Total Sample

with Email Total Undeliverable

% of Email Sample

undeliverable

25 or under 35,575 3,275 9%

26 - 30 34,130 3,035 9%

31 - 40 18,500 1,445 8%

41 - 50 11,155 1,035 9%

51 + 6,615 600 9%

Unknown 5 0 0%

Table 7.45: Quality of Email addresses by ethnicity

Total Sample

with Email

Total

Undeliverable

% of Email

Sample

undeliverable

Any White 79,540 7,100 9%

Any Black 6,340 560 9%

Any Asian 10,040 870 9%

Any Mixed 4,930 435 9%

Other Ethnic

background 2,600 225 9%

Not known /

Information

refused / Blank

2,530 195 8%



Table 7.46: Quality of Email addresses by course type

Total Sample

with Email

Total

Undeliverable

% of Email

Sample

undeliverable

First Degree 63,190 5,760 9%

Higher degree research 5,515 475 9%

Higher degree taught 12,260 870 7%

Other postgraduate 7,890 565 7%

Other undergraduate 17,125 1,715 10%

Table 7.47: Quality of Email addresses by course subject

Total Sample

with Email

Total

Undeliverable

% of Email

Sample

undeliverable

Medicine and Dentistry 4,860 550 11%

Subjects Allied to Medicine 25,145 2,335 9%

Biological Sciences 14,295 1,355 9%

Veterinary Sciences, Agriculture

and related subjects 875 60 7%

Physical Sciences 6,195 435 7%


Sciences 7,610 555 7%

Engineering 4,585 335 7%

Technologies 755 85 11%

Architecture, Building and Planning 2,330 195 8%

Social studies 6,495 530 8%

Law 2,570 215 8%


studies 8,205 720 9%


Documentation 1,745 190 11%

Linguistics, Classics and related

subjects 2,635 185 7%

European Languages, Literature

and related subjects 2,595 160 6%

Eastern, Asiatic, African, American

and Australasian Languages,

Literature and related subjects 450 55

12%

Historical and Philosophical studies 2,495 180 7%

Creative Arts and Design 6,430 635 10%

Education 5,190 600 12%

Combined subjects 530 20 4%



Table 7.48: Quality of Email addresses by HEP location

Total Sample

with Email

Total

Undeliverable

% of Email

Sample

undeliverable

England 90,820 8,205 9%

Scotland 5,660 335 6%

Wales 5,830 620 11%

Northern Ireland 3,670 230 6%



Appendix J(2) – Quality of e-mail addresses by key demographics - Sample ‘B’

Table 7.49: Quality of Email addresses by gender

Total Sample with

Email

Total

Undeliverable

% of Email

Sample

undeliverable

Male 71,825 6,485 9%

Female 97,080 8,690 9%

Table 7.50: Quality of Email addresses by age

Total Sample with

Email Total Undeliverable

% of Email Sample

undeliverable

25 or under 67,810 6,595 10%

26 - 30 53,380 4,555 9%

31 - 40 22,755 1,845 8%

41 - 50 14,930 1,325 9%

51 + 10,025 855 9%

Unknown 10 * 8%


Table 7.51: Quality of Email addresses by ethnicity

Total Sample

with Email

Total

Undeliverable

% of Email

Sample

undeliverable

Any White 141,670 13,005 9%

Any Black 6,130 505 8%

Any Asian 12,755 1,050 8%

Any Mixed 1,995 145 7%

Other Ethnic background 0 - -


refused / Blank 6,355 470 7%

Table 7.52: Quality of Email addresses by course type

Total Sample

with Email

Total

Undeliverable

% of Email

Sample

undeliverable

First Degree 109,455 10,270 9%

Higher degree research 0 - -

Higher degree taught 24,965 1,800 7%

Other postgraduate 15,820 1,250 8%

Other undergraduate 18,665 1,850 10%



Table 7.53: Quality of Email addresses by course subject

Total Sample

with Email

Total

Undeliverable

% of Email

Sample

undeliverable

Medicine and Dentistry 465 35 8%

Subjects Allied to Medicine 2,705 170 6%



Agriculture and related subjects 2,120 185 9%

Physical Sciences 5,160 485 9%


Sciences 8,540 665 8%

Engineering 7,710 525 7%

Technologies 1,440 185 13%


Planning 6,020 560 9%

Social studies 21,585 1,980 9%

Law 8,980 750 8%


studies 24,775 2,365 10%




related subjects 9,320 760 8%

European Languages,

Literature and related subjects 1,455 95 6%




related subjects

270 30 10%


studies 8,975 735 8%

Creative Arts and Design 19,955 1,915 10%

Education 20,045 1,920 10%

Combined subjects 2,005 85 4%

Table 7.54: Quality of Email addresses by HEP location

Total Sample with

Email

Total

Undeliverable

% of Email Sample

undeliverable

England 14,7100 13,535 9%

Scotland 11,850 610 5%

Wales 8,160 940 12%

Northern

Ireland 1,795 85 5%



Appendix J(3) – Quality of telephone numbers - Sample ‘A’

Table 7.55: Unusable telephone sample by gender

Total Sample

Total Contactable

At Start Of

Telephone

Fieldwork

Total

Unusable

telephone

contacts

% of Unusable

contacts

Male 46,565 35,990 8,715 24%

Female 75,365 58,565 14,990 26%

Table 7.56: Unusable telephone sample by age

Total Sample

Total Contactable

At Start Of

Telephone

Fieldwork

Total Unusable

telephone

contacts

% of

Unusable

contacts

25 or under 40,140 32,045 7,045 22%

26 - 30 39,625 30,445 8,175 27%

31 - 40 21,615 16,190 5,015 31%

41 - 50 12,895 10,125 2,395 24%

51 + 7,645 5,745 1,075 19%

Unknown 5 5 * 20%


Table 7.57: Unusable telephone sample by ethnicity

Total Sample

Total Contactable

At Start Of

Telephone

Fieldwork

Total Unusable

telephone

contacts

% of

Unusable

contacts

Any White 92,025 70,750 17,430 25%

Any Black 7,035 5,725 1,810 32%

Any Asian 11,385 9,370 1,940 21%

Any Mixed 5,530 4,325 1,195 28%

Other Ethnic

background 2,930 2,300 640 28%

Not known /

Information refused

/ Blank

3,025 2,085 690 33%



Table 7.58: Unusable telephone sample by course type

Total Sample

Total Contactable

At Start Of

Telephone

Fieldwork

Total Unusable

telephone

contacts

% of

Unusable

contacts

First Degree 71,645 56,665 13,685 24%

Higher degree

research 6,955 4,080 1,180 29%

Higher degree

taught 13,970 10,210 2,775 27%


Other

undergraduate 20,225 16,300 4,245 26%

Table 7.59: Unusable telephone sample by course subject

Total Sample

Total Contactable

At Start Of

Telephone

Fieldwork

Total

Unusable

telephone

contacts

% of

Unusable

contacts


Subjects Allied to

Medicine 29,290 23,160 6,000 26%




subjects

1,060 790 170 21%


Mathematical and


Engineering 5,435 4,020 1,035 26%


Architecture, Building

and Planning 2,675 2,195 535 24%

Social studies 7,465 5,830 1,490 26%

Law 2,930 2,380 630 26%

Business and


Mass Communications




European Languages,


subjects

2,970 2,145 570 27%



Total Sample

Total Contactable

At Start Of

Telephone

Fieldwork

Total

Unusable

telephone

contacts

% of

Unusable

contacts


American and



subjects

520 370 90 24%

Historical and



Education 5,965 4,825 1,055 22%


Table 7.60: Unusable telephone sample by HEP location

Total Sample

Total Contactable

At Start Of

Telephone

Fieldwork

Total Unusable

telephone

contacts

% of Unusable

contacts

England 103,075 79,250 19,980 25%

Scotland 7,430 5,690 1,525 27%

Wales 6,705 5,320 1,365 26%

Northern

Ireland 4,720 4,295 835 19%



Appendix K – Opt outs by key demographics

Table 7.61: Opt outs by gender

Total

Sample

Opt

out

Opt out as a proportion of total

sample

Male 140,825 13,155 9%

Female 202,155 17,990 9%

Table 7.62: Opt outs by age

Total

Sample

Opt

out

Opt out as a proportion of total

sample

25 or

under 126,635 11,420 9%

26 - 30 110,605 10,510 10%

31 - 40 52,510 5,035 10%

41 - 50 32,515 2,595 8%

51 + 20,700 1,580 8%

Unknown 25 * 8%


Table 7.63: Opt outs by ethnicity

Total

Sample

Opt

out

Opt out as a

proportion of total

sample

Any White 276,975 25,140 9%

Any Black 14,755 1,045 7%

Any Asian 27,755 2,485 9%

Any Mixed 8,545 790 9%

Other Ethnic

background 3,210 280 9%

Not known /

Information refused /

Blank

11,735 1,395 12%



Table 7.64: Opt outs by course type

Total

Sample

Opt

out

Opt out as a proportion

of total sample

First Degree 210,655 18,435 9%

Higher degree

research 7,900 940 12%

Higher degree

taught 46,715 4,405 9%

Other

postgraduate 30,370 3,000 10%

Other

undergraduate 47,345 4,365 9%

Table 7.65: Opt outs by subject area

Total

Sample

Opt

out

Opt out as a

proportion of

total sample

Medicine and Dentistry 7,730 720 9%

Subjects Allied to Medicine 35,770 3,155 9%


Veterinary Sciences, Agriculture

and related subjects 3,840 310 8%

Physical Sciences 14,530 1,485 10%


Sciences 20,055 1,935 10%

Engineering 15,955 1,630 10%

Technologies 2,720 260 9%


Planning 10,585 1,010 10%

Social studies 34,735 2,925 8%

Law 14,235 1,250 9%


studies 41,085 4,045 10%



Linguistics, Classics and related

subjects 14,535 1,180 8%

European Languages,

Literature and related subjects 5,140 495 10%




related subjects

935 100 10%



Total

Sample

Opt

out

Opt out as a

proportion of

total sample


studies 14,250 1,215 9%

Creative Arts and Design 31,765 3,135 10%

Education 31,480 2,630 8%

Combined subjects 2,785 135 5%

Table 7.66: Opt outs by HEP location

Total

Sample

Opt

out

Opt out as a proportion of

total sample

England 293,025 27,110 9%

Scotland 25,345 2,550 10%

Wales 17,485 1,385 8%

Northern

Ireland 7,125 95 1%



Appendix L – Response rates by key sampling frame demographics

Type of leaver DLHE Sample

size

Number of

completes Response rate

Ethnic Group

Black 14,755 3,370 23%

Asian 27,755 5,990 22%

Mixed 8,545 2,615 31%

Other Ethnic Group 3,210 1,085 34%

Research Students

Doctorate and Masters Research 7,900 3,140 40%

Health Education England

HEE leavers (excluding Research) 47,445 18,300 39%

Sampling for HEPs in England

HND/HNC leavers 2,960 1,015 34%

Foundation degree leavers 13,525 3,095 23%

Sandwich - industrial placement 10,165 3,260 32%

POLAR3 quintile 1 or 2 56,045 16,105 29%

Specialist HEP leavers 28,105 8,885 32%

Leavers in receipt of Disabled Students’

Allowance (DSA) 10,950 3,635 33%

Disabled students not in receipt of DSA 11,285 3,715 33%

Unemployed in DLHE 2010/11 35,135 8,300 24%

Self-employed in DLHE 2010/11 10,780 3,010 28%

Chemistry leavers 2,880 1,280 44%

Physics leavers 2,480 1,100 44%

Mathematics leavers 6,365 2,205 35%

Engineering leavers 14,930 3,460 23%

European language leavers 5,805 1,870 32%

Non-European language leavers 715 225 32%

Computer science leavers 11,055 2,565 23%

Other* 69,905 13,295 19%

Sampling for HEPs in Wales

Wales domiciled 15,295 3,875 25%

HEPs in Wales 17,485 4,600 26%

Sampling for HEPs in Scotland

Scotland domiciled 22,505 4,970 22%

HEPs in Scotland 25,345 5,415 21%

Sampling for HEPs in Northern

Ireland

Northern Ireland domiciled 9,405 2,875 31%

HEPs in Northern Ireland 7,125 2,230 31%

Total 34,2980 81,650 24%

*= all remaining leavers from English HEPs not explicitly stated above.

destinations of leavers from higher education 10/11 survey · destinations of leavers from higher...

Documents