A University Guide for the 21st Century - Essay Example

Since 2002 and 2003, Durham has enrolled fewer – the number enrolled at the undergraduate level in 2009 and 2010 was over 11,000 but in 2002 to 2003 it was in excess of 13,000 students. While the reputation of the university has been solidified across a number of different university rankings systems, and while there has been a wide transformation in the increase of diversity among the overall student population, there are fewer students enrolled. The following study asks how best can the Sunday Times University Guide (STUG from here ff.) be adapted as providing a framework and background for a Durham University messaging (marketing) strategy? Moreover, what are the key messages that can be ascertained from a rigorous critique of the very methodology of the STUG ? IT WILL BE DEMONSTRATED THAT A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE STUG YIELDS A TWO-FOLD IMPROVEMENT FOR DURHAM UNIVERSITY: ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND INCREASED DIVERSITY BY ALL RELEVENT INDICATORS. SCOPE & BREADTH OF DATA PRESENTED: Established in 1993 and both funded and supported by universities across the UK [APPENDIX: D] the Higher Education Statistics Agency houses a significant body of data pertaining to university demographics – indeed, HESA tracks performance indicators, finance, enrollment, student achievement at all levels, faculty demographics, and a wide range of other very useful information [see: APPENDIX: B-C; E - F]. For the STUG, the HESA is the source for a number of their key indicators in regard to how they compare one university in the UK against the next [APPENDIX C]. The following analysis is dependent upon both the various university guides such as the STUG, the Guardian annual survey and the Complete University Guide, but also the annual key indicators that are accumulated and presented at HESA. The details of the analysis will be comparative as far as including both the newspaper distillation of the HESA information ( and beyond the HESA too), with particular attention paid to the STUG, but also the HESA in its raw and more expansive form. METHODOLOGY: There is both qualitative and quantitative methods employed in this analysis. First, the data stated in the previous section will be compared in terms of key performance indicators. In numerical or quantitative terms, significant improvements, changes or declines will be noted and presented. Particular focus will be paid to the indicators that are Durham specific, however, it is difficult to isolate Durham University when considering notable differences over time. Thus, as a comparative analysis, Durhams performance and progress will be evaluated over and against both the national average in the UK and also, other universities that have a similar scale, academic agenda or other variables that correspond which are noteworthy. The concluding sections of this analysis will be qualitative in method, and the closing recommendations and formal conclusions will focus on how the data presented can be accommodated into a marketing strategy. What are the limitations to the conclusions made by SLUG when compared with other data, and other comparative guides, and therefore, what key messages can be drawn from the quantitative information? 1. DEMOGRAPHIC & QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW: Durham University STUDENT& FACULTY DEMOGRAPHICS: The history of Durham University is as medieval as Cambridge or Oxford [APPENDIX G ] . However, it is the present and the future that most concerns this analysis. In the Academic Year 2009 to 2010 Durham University had the following demographic make-up. There were 11,175 undergraduates and a total of 4,593 postgraduate students at Durham for the same academic period. In terms of the composition of students and the break down of the faculties and departments, at the level of Undergraduate studies there were in the Social Sciences and Health, there was a total of 4,630 students. Overall, that is the largest academic area at Durham. In size, this is followed by the faculty of Science which had a total of 3,950 students. Finally, the academic area of the Arts and Humanities had a total of 2,595 students at the Undergraduate level. At the graduate level, the Social Sciences and Health faculty had a total of 3,344 students which is higher proportionate to the undergraduate students by a significant level. Conversely, in terms of the number of graduate students in the other faculties there were for the year 2009/10) in the postgraduate level: Arts and Humanities 578) individuals and in the faculty of Science there were 671. While the university does not maintain data that is specific to ethnic groups or nationalities, religious affiliation, and so forth, there is information available such that they know that there are 130 countries represented. That is, among both the staff and student bodies, and further to the diversity which is actively promoted and celebrated at Durham University, 21% of students studying at the campus are of non-UK origin. The diversity of the student body is actually more pronounced at the level of faculty. Within the three different faculties and twenty five different department bodies at Durham University, for the Academic Year 2009 to 2010, there were 3,854 staff including 1,449 academic staff or teaching faculty. Within this body of employees at the University and specific within the faculty or the instructors or professors, currently there is a total of 32% of the total academic staff are non-UK origin. Diversity is unquestionably one of the strengths and notable trends for Durham University over the last years, and this will be a significant factor influencing some of the basic marketing strategies that are presented in the current study. 1.C. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW: In general, and in comparison with the operating capital and endowment of other post secondary institutions in the UK, Durham University is on pretty solid footing as far as finances go. Indeed, the relative stability of Durham University in contemporary terms, stands as a contrast to what is going on nation wide as far as university fiscal problems go – in short, most universities with the exception of the more established post secondary institutions, are struggling financially [Morgan, 2010, p. 5]. In terms of the most current figures, Durham University has an annual operating budget that totals £249M per ann-um for the academic year: 2009 to 2010 [Durham University, 2010]. What is significant in terms of the present study, is that they are also managing to function as a university with a surplus and in the same year, the operational surplus at Durham University was £12.3M [Durham University, 2010]. This is obviously an attribute to the fiscal responsibility or management of the university, but also a further reflection of the Universities capacity or ability to draw in funding from alternative sources from the Government. For the year in question or for the years 2009 to 2010, the total endowment for Durham University, and excluding the endowments that each college has (this is significant) was £ 57.8 Million [Durham University, 2010]. It is important to note that Durham is relatively stable financially, and arguably, because of the significant size of the endowment. When one divides, for example, the total endowment for Durham University, the amount works out to £ 3614.91 per student. While this is not nearly the amount of funds available to the Oxford or Cambridge, it is nonetheless fairly substantial compared with other universities in the UK. Moreover, this is not the total endowment as each of the colleges at Durham has its own endowment as well, and there are sixteen different colleges. Durham University and STUG (Sunday Times University Guide). 2.A. THE GUIDE: Among university guides in the UK, the STUG is only one among many. For instance, both the Guardian and the Independent both have an annual ranking of universities across the UK, and also there is a well known publication titled The Complete University Guide that similarly has an annual set of data that is available to students and those interested. The Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdochs News Corporation, and while it used to be a publication that was independent of The Times, they are now a part of the same organization. This is mentioned because the same organization also owns The Times, and they too have an assessment or ranking of universities, that is actually different than that of STUG – although, there is unquestionably some overlap in regard to the categories being considered on the one hand, and on the other hand, the methodologies or sources for the data itself. The STUG has been one of the more significant, and as we shall see, sometimes, controversial ranking system specific to universities in the UK. 2.B. STUG PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: For the evaluation of universities in the UK, the STUG approach looks at nine different categories in their assessment, and in turn, they have a point system that these categories represent. In terms of the most points in the overall assessment, the category of [1] A-level/Higher results is given an annual total of 250 points. This information is the nationally audited data for the year that follows the assessment of the other categories, and the organization that maintains this information which the STUG uses is the Higher Education Statistics Agency (http://www.hesa.ac.uk/ ). This is an organization created in 1993 in order to maintain an ongoing collection of quality data on post-secondary institutions in the UK, and its funding comes from subscriptions sold to the actual universities themselves, and while it is a public institution and an independent third party organization, the funding for it has been mandated as part of the responsibilities of Universities and post-secondary institutions in the UK (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2011). In terms of what is at the lower end of the scale within the STUGs performance indicators, [2] Teaching excellence is the very lowest and it is a mere 50 points. By this ranking, excellence is defined as those areas or disciplines that score in terms of academic grading, at least 22/24 points, for those that are deemed excellent. For the STUG, these indicators are not collected by a single body, but national offices representing the different states within the United Kingdom and the data source for this is Quality Assurance Agency in England, and in Scotland it is the Higher Education Funding Council, and finally, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales). While student A-level performance is provided the most amount of points, and teaching excellence is provided the least at 50, the rest or the balance of the indicators for the STUG fall into a point total of either 100 or 200. At the 100 point level of the STUG assessment are: how many [3] Firsts/2:1s awarded, [4] Heads/peer assessment, [5], the student to staff ratio, and finally, [6] the unemployment rate of students starting after a six-month period following graduation. At the 200 point level, the criteria used in the STUG is the [7] Student satisfaction rate and the [8] quality of research among faculty or departments. Finally, the drop out rate is also taken into consideration with the STUG, and the point weight for this varies depending on how the universities own data measures against their own internal performance targets. That is, this is an assessment that takes into consideration how many students will drop out of the program, and how many actually do this. RECENT DURHAM UNIVERSITY STUG PERFORMANCE: Durham University has demonstrated a marked improvement in their own rankings, both within the STUG but also some of the other guides or assessment bodies. While the following will focus exclusively on the STUG, it should be stated in brief that the STUG is largely consistent with other methods and this can be concluded given that there is a fairly consistent performance from Durham University when compared with other post-secondary institutions. For example, in terms of alternative rankings, Durham University placed sixth in the STUG and The Times, but fifth in The Complete University Guide and eighth in the UK, according to the guide annually distributed and compiled by the Guardian. In International figures, Durham University finished 85th in the THE world rankings (2010) and 92nd in QS world ranking (2010) and their MBA program placed 14th Internationally according to the Wallstreet Journal [Durham University, 2011]. 2009 and 2010 STUG DATA COMPARISON: The are so many positives regarding the progress made at Durham University according to the STUG data, it is difficult to know where to begin. Indeed, this is not a remark that is hyperbole or a literary device designed or employed to punctuate a marked progress. Rather, it is a way of saying that focusing on the various progresses made by Durham according to the STUG, is like comparing apples to oranges. When two performance indicators are not mutually exclusive of one another, there is no reason why they are not both important variables or factors of consideration. At the outset, it should be stressed that while there will be a discussion of the progress (and also problems) with Durham Universities performance according to the STUG, that which marks the progress is difficult to compare with itself. There is no ranking in the following discussion, and some of the methodological considerations about the STUG will be suspended in the following overview of the data itself. Among indicators, the Sunday Times ranking itself is probably the most important. In the last four years or the years 2008 until 2010, Durham University has increased its positioning by one integer annually [APPENDIX A]. In 2008 Durham University was ranked eighth, and that has improved each year such that in 2010 it was ranked in sixth place in the UK overall [see: APPENDIX D regarding the universities that take part of the STUG] . What is notable about the STUG progress, is that it is echoed or mirrored in the World ranking 122 in 2009 to a new level in 2010 of, 92 [APPENDIX A]. While it can be said that the overall progress is discernible in terms of both the STUG and the World Survey that the STUG cites [APPENDIX A], explaining that transformation or change is difficult to pinpoint. Thus, a number of variables can be said to be contributing to the improvement, and as mentioned in the methodological section, the amount of points ascribed to certain areas are largely what shape or determine the final ranking for the given category. For instance, and one of the indicators that obviously had little or no impact, is the research component of the STUG assessment. The number or the percentage given to Durham University was stagnant at 68 % [APPENDIX A]. Thus, if this had more of a weight given to it, the impact might have been more significant. Likewise with the rise of student unemployment. In terms of the graduate of Durham University, the STUG tracks students or alumni beginning with the period after six months following their departure from the university – that is, six months after the last day in which they were technically enrolled at Durham. [APPENDIX A]. Likewise, one factor that might have impacted Durham University if the ratio was changed, was the decrease in teaching staff at the university. One of the core indicators of teaching outcomes as a causal factor, is the student to teacher ratio. At Durham University, the number of faculty or instructors that are in front of students has declined, but only by a very small percentage or total amount. It can be said that the number was so insignificant that it made no impact on the STUG evaluation, given the overall progress, and also, it can be said that the impact was minimal according to a number of other indicators or variables that the STUG takes into consideration. For example, the Student satisfaction rate overall was 78.8% in 2009 to a new level in 2010 of 79.4% [APPENDIX A]. It should be noted that this is relatively high in comparison with other universities that are being examined [APPENDIX D] according to information also gathered from HESA [APPENDIX B]. Along with an improving or progressing degree of student satisfaction, the total number of applications were up in the same period by 3 % within a single or year or the period of 2009 to 2010. Likewise, and as a further indication of student satisfaction overall, the dropout rate was 3.3% in 2009, and that decreased to a new level in of 1.6% in 2010. It should be mentioned, and as a methodological consideration, that the drop out rate might in this situation be impacted or effected by the economy. As there has been an increase in unemployment in the same period [APPENDIX A], and at almost a full percentage point it is not an insignificant amount, it might be argued that the job market has more to do with the drop out rate than other factors or causal variables. In short, and as a qualitative rather than a quantitative piece of analysis, it can be said that it is as likely poor job opportunities that are going to impact or influence the decision of a student to remain in school or not. There is a positive correlation between high drop out rates on the one hand, and a strong rather than a volatile job market. This said, while there are more students remaining at Durham University, there is not a measurable negative effect on the overall key performance indicators of the students. One would think that the overall performance or average of the student body would decline under circumstances where there are more students remaining, and where, for example, there are fewer teachers and more restraints on institutional funding imposed by government cut-backs, however, this has not been the case at Durham University. That is, even though these factors might have contributed to an inference under similar circumstances. Rather, the key performance of the students at Durham University has gone up over the past year being analyzed in the current study. For instance, Firsts and 2:1s were 77.5% of the total student body in 2009, and these improved to a new level in 2010 of, 79% of the total student body. [APPENDIX A]. When compared with the same indicator for other universities, Durham is unquestionably a strong performer in this regard. Most post secondary institutions have a much lower output or result of Firsts and 2:1s, and thus, this is one of the notable achievements in terms of key messaging as we shall see in the following sections. In terms of the objective of establishing a messaging or marketing strategy, there are a number of other significant indicators collected or accumulated with the data gathered by STUG that are worth mentioning in brief. While not measurable performance indicators, they nonetheless have import or significance/meaning within the broader context of presenting an overall picture of Durham University. It can be said the other variables worth mentioning in this qualitative sense, are mostly demographic. That is, they are quantifiable or determinable as numbers, however, the importance of them is qualitative in scope. In terms of the demographic make-up of Durham University as captured in the STUG, there were 11,273 undergraduates in 2009 and this changed to a new level in 2010 of, 11,144. With regard to Postgraduates, there were 3,114 in 2009 and in 2010 of this increased to 3,800. In terms of market segmentation, the total body can be further broken down into the following sub-sets of student definitions [Weinstein, 2004, 29]. There were EU/overseas students totaling between 2.6% and 8.5% in 2009, and that increased over the past year to the number of EU/overseas students as between 3.6% and /9.1%, over the total student body. Further, there was an improvement in the market segment of mature students or individuals who are over the age of 25.. In 2009 the total number of Mature Students was 6.4%. In 2010 , there was an increase in this market segment to a level of 7.2% [APPENDIX A]. In keeping with the expansion or increase of diversity in the student body, there is another market segment worth noting in terms of the demographic changes. Among the lowest social classes in the UK, the percentage of the student body went from 14.3% to in 2009 to a new level in 2010 of Lowest social classes 16.8%. Representative in terms of a number, that improvement of 2.5 % of 11,144 students is 278 students and that is not insignificant. Likewise, and in keeping with variables that are connected to demographic variables that are socio-economic in scope, Durham University is starting to improve on who it attracts for its enrollment by reaching out to areas where there is low participation. Thus, as another factor or variable indicating an improvement or change in the demographics that can be said to be progressive, Durham University has improved its capacity or ability to bring in students from Low-participation areas, and this is substantiated by the 4.4% in 2009, to a new level in 2010 of 4.6% of the total student body or population. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS: Diversity is the strength and unquestionably one of the over riding themes or consistent features of the changes that are occurring at Durham University. While it is important that the STUG be understood as capturing the important academic indicators that contribute to the overall ranking of the institution, it is also a metric that can be said to be demonstrating an increase as far as diversity goes. There is as much to celebrate in terms of the increased range of students becoming attracted to Durham University, as the performance of the student body overall. The STUG has been examined from a number of perspectives that are relevant to key messaging. Durham is improving internally, and it is improving across all of the major systems and publications that track the performance of universities in the UK. Indeed, as Durham University has improved its ranking in the UK, so to too in terms of its position internationally. As one of the oldest post-secondary institutions in the UK, the college/tutor system remains one of Durham Universities strengths. The university should continue to focus its attention on the market segments identified in this analysis as growth opportunities. Building on an existing trend is far easier than building from scratch, and improving on diversity is a step toward improving Durham Universities future potential. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Durham University, 2011, Various. Web site: http://www.dur.ac.uk/ Last Accessed: July 23, 2011. Durham University, 2010, Financial Statements 2009-2010. Web Page: http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/treasurer/financial_statements/FinancialStatements2009-2010.pdf Last Accessed July 15th, 2011. The Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2011, Organization Overview. Web Page. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/4/54/ . Last Accessed: July 21st, 2011. The Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2000-2011, Statistics - Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE). Web Page. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1897&Itemid=239 . Last Accessed: July 21st, 2011. [REPRINTED IN APPENDIXS] Morgan, John, 2010, "Reality check: the UK clings on to second place in global league, but experts warn of limits to doing more with less". Times Higher Education, 9/16/2010, Issue Number 1965, pp.6-7. Weinstein, 2004, Handbook of market segmentation: strategic targeting for business and technology firms. Binghampton: The Haworth Press. Read More