Part-time Students And part-time Study In Higher ... - Universities UK

Part-time students and part-timestudy in higher education in theUKStrand 3: a survey of students’attitudes and experiences of part-timestudy and its costs 2005/06A report for Universities UK and GuildHEBy Professor Claire CallenderLondon South Bank UniversityAnd David WilkinsonKaren MackinonPolicy Studies Institute

ContentsExecutive Summary 51 Introduction 81.1 The policy context ............................................................................................................. 81.2 Existing research............................................................................................................. 101.3 Aims ................................................................................................................................ 111.4 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 121.5 Outline of report .............................................................................................................. 121.6 Characteristics of the sample.......................................................................................... 122 Reasons for studying 182.1 Why students decided to study part-time rather than full-time ....................................... 182.2 Why students decided to do their course/qualification.................................................... 192.3 Why students chose their particular HEI/college ............................................................ 212.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................223 The costs of study 233.1 Tuition/course fees.......................................................................................................... 233.2 Other course costs.......................................................................................................... 343.3 Total study costs ............................................................................................................. 373.4 Students’ income............................................................................................................. 443.5 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................454 Attitudes to the costs of study and student support, and the adequacy of studentsupport 464.1 Optimum tuition/course fee price .................................................................................... 464.2 Optimum tuition fee price and the role of student support.............................................. 474.3 Student support............................................................................................................... 504.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................575 Experiences of studying part-time 595.1 Barriers to participation in students’ course.................................................................... 595.2 Other constraints on students ......................................................................................... 615.3 Length and intensity of study .......................................................................................... 625.4 Modes of study and patterns of study............................................................................. 635.5 Use of university services and facilities .......................................................................... 665.6 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................686 The long view 706.1 Course’s value for money and the returns of study ........................................................ 706.2 Destinations ....................................................................................................................716.3 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................727 References 738 Appendix 1 – Tables 759 Appendix 2 – Technical Report 809.1 Sampling ......................................................................................................................... 809.2 The questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 819.3 Pilot ................................................................................................................................. 819.4 Fieldwork......................................................................................................................... 829.5 Data analysis...................................................................................................................849.6 Weighting the data .......................................................................................................... 84Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 3

TablesTable 1.1: Student support ............................................................................................................................... 9Table 1.2: Socio-economic characteristics of students surveyed ............................................................ 14Table 1.3: Institutional characteristics of students surveyed..................................................................... 16Table 3.1: Amount of course/tuition fees paid by socio-economic characteristics: Mean anddistribution ....................................................................................................................................................... 25Table 3.2: Amount of course/tuition fees paid by institutional characteristics: Mean and distribution.26Table 3.3: Full-time equivalent level of fees by socio-economic characteristics: Mean anddistribution ....................................................................................................................................................... 29Table 3.4: Full-time equivalent level of fees by students’ institutional characteristics: Mean anddistribution ....................................................................................................................................................... 30Table 3.5: Who paid the tuition fees by source ........................................................................................... 31Table 3.6: Other course costs by type........................................................................................................... 35Table 3.7: Who paid these course costs ...................................................................................................... 36Table 3.8: Average total costs by students’ socio-economic characteristics: Mean and distribution .. 39Table 3.9: Average total costs by students’ institutional characteristics: Mean and distribution ......... 40Table 3.10: Costs incurred by socio-economic characteristics: Mean and distribution ......................... 42Table 3.11: Costs incurred by students’ institutional characteristics: Mean and distribution ............... 43Table 3.12: Gross personal income of students surveyed ......................................................................... 44Table 3.13: Gross household income of students surveyed ...................................................................... 45Table 4.1: Average fees charged by HEIs compared with the value of the fee grants............................. 55Table 4.2: Percentage of students surveyed being charged fees greater than the value of the feegrants................................................................................................................................................................ 56Table 5.2: Travel to course ...................................................................................................................... 68Table A2.1: Percentage of students who reported degree of importance of reason decided to studypart-time ........................................................................................................................................................... 75Table A2.2: Percentage of students who reported degree of importance of reason decided to do thecourse ............................................................................................................................................................... 76Table A2.3: Percentage of students who reported degree of importance of reason chose theirinstitution ......................................................................................................................................................... 77Table A4.1: Attitudes to student support and costs of study....................................................................78Table A5.1: Percentage reporting the extent of difficulty in participation in course .............................. 78Table A5.2: Other study constraints............................................................................................................. 79Table A6.1: Attitudes the costs of study and the returns of HE ................................................................ 79Table A1: Response rates for HEIs................................................................................................................ 83Table A2: Comparison between HESA and survey data for all part-time students who are studyingfor a qualification............................................................................................................................................. 85Table A3: Qualification aim – comparison between HESA and survey data for all part-time studentsstudying for a qualification............................................................................................................................. 86Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 4

Executive summaryIntroductionThis report is about undergraduate students’ experience of, and attitudes towards, part-time study,its costs and student support. It was commissioned by Universities UK and GuildHE (previouslySCOP).The study was carried out by Professor Claire Callender of London South Bank University, the PolicyStudies Institute, and GfK NOP Ltd. It is based on an online survey of 2,654 students drawn from 25higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK, and was conducted between November 2005 andJanuary 2006.The students surveyed were not representative of all part-time undergraduates in the UK, and overrepresentstudents undertaking a first degree.Students’ choicesAffordability was the key reason why students choose to study part-time rather than full-time as theycould not afford to give up their job, especially if working full-time. Other, pragmatic factors alsoshaped students’ decisions and choices. The vast majority were working and a sizeable minority alsohad family ties, and so their choices were both constrained and influenced by these commitments –part-time study had to be fitted around these realities and the other demands of their daily lives. So,students were drawn to part-time study because it was more convenient, particularly for studentswith children, and those choosing to study via distance learning courses. Convenience also affectedwhere they studied. They selected an HEI because the timing of the courses suited their existingcommitments and because of its proximity to work or home. However, the subjects on offer were themost common reason for choosing a particular HEI.Students’ motives for studying were primarily instrumental. Most important were their desire to gain aqualification and improve their skills, labour market and career prospects – concerns linked to theLifelong Learning agenda of 'upskilling'. However, they were also motivated by intellectual factors,such as an interest in the subject and a desire to be stretched intellectually or continue their learning.The costs of studyThe total costs of study – tuition fees and other course costs – amounted to an average £1,385 overthe 2004/05 academic year. Some 59 per cent of this was spent on tuition fees and the remaining 41per cent on other course costs such as books, computers, travel etc.The costs of tuition varied considerably. The mean amount of tuition fees charged by the HEIsattended was £821 and the median was £800 over the academic year, which equated to £1,480 and£1,200 respectively for a full-time equivalent course.Three in five students paid for some of their tuition/course fees out of their own pocket, with theremainder getting financial support from their employer (35%) or a Government grant (13%).Students employed full-time (mostly men) were more than two and half times more likely than thoseemployed part-time (mostly women) to have had some of their fees paid by their employer (45%compared with 17%); three times more likely to have had their fees paid in full by their employerPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 5

(35% compared with 12%); and two and a half times more likely to have been given paid time offwork to study (40% compared with 16%). So the key beneficiaries of employer support were full-timeworkers, along with those taking a vocational qualification, and those from the wealthiesthouseholds.On top of tuition/course fees, students incurred other course costs of £625 on average over the2005/06 academic year most of which they paid for themselves.Attitudes to the cost of studyThe optimum tuition fee price estimated to maximise student participation for a course eachacademic year was about £600, and for those taking a first degree it was slightly higher at around£700. And, this price remained unchanged even when taking into account the potential availability ofincome contingent student loans, means-tested grants, or a mixture of loans and grants. This isbecause for most students the price at which the course would become too expensive was abovethe optimum price.£800 was the median tuition fee actually paid by the students surveyed while the average was £821,which suggests that either current fees levels have been set just above the optimum level in order tomaximise participation, or that the optimum level of fees is partly determined by the amount of feespaid.The optimum price also is roughly equivalent to the fees for 0.5 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) for a firstdegree at current prices. If part-time fees are to be linked pro-rata to future full-time fees of £3,000,they would have to rise well above the optimum price found in this study, which may affectparticipation levels.The average price at which a course would become too expensive to consider taking was £1,666.This price rose only slightly with the potential availability of varying types of student support. Itincreased by £100 with the availability of an income contingent loan for tuition fees or a £1,000means-tested grant, and by £169 for a mixture of a grant and loan.Eligibility to student supportAn estimated 77 per cent of the students in this study were ineligible for a Government-fundedcourse or fee grant – the main sources of means-tested student support to which part-time studentsare entitled. They were ineligible for one of three reasons: they were not studying at least 50 per centof a full-time course; they already had a Level 4 qualification; and/or their incomes were too high. Ofthe remainder who were eligible, 14 per cent would have received full grants and 9 per cent partialgrants.The adequacy of student supportNeither of these grants covered the majority of eligible students’ full costs. Some 58 per cent ofeligible students incurred course costs exceeding the maximum course grant of £250 while 53 perwere charged tuition fees that exceeded the maximum value of the 2005/06 fee grants. Even withenhanced grants for 2006/07, 28 per cent of students still would have had fees in excess of thegrant.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 6

Attitudes to student supportJust over one in five students thought that financial support for part-time students adequate, but theywere unsupportive of income contingent loans with only 38 per cent willing to take one out, ifavailable.Barriers to full participationAll the students surveyed were currently studying and so had overcome the initial barriers to accessand participating in HE. However, the majority still faced other obstacles and difficulties thatprevented them participating fully in their course, particularly a lack of time and competing demands,both at work (83%) and at home (77%). Most struggled juggling part-time study with their othercommitments (78%) and could not devote enough time to studying (62%), despite havingsympathetic staff who recognised these pressures (62%). These issues were exacerbated byunrealistic expectations about the amount of time needed to devote to their course (71%) andinadequate time management and study skills (65%), suggesting both an information and skills gap.However, unaffordable costs were also a barrier to full participation for nearly half the students,especially low incomes students (64%), lone parents (62%), and women (58%).Patterns of studyMost students surveyed were doing courses over 0.5 FTE, and most anticipated that their courseswould last between 3-5 years. Nearly three-quarters (72%) were taking courses delivered throughface-to-face contact. Students spent an average of 15 hours a week studying, mostly at home.However, the majority frequently used their HEI’s online resources and library facilities.The futureNearly three-quarters all students believed their course represented good value for money. Theyalso were convinced of the economic and social returns of HE and thought they would benefitfinancially (66%) and socially (56%) from their course in the longer term. With this worthwhileinvestment behind them, the most popular destination on course completion was further studyalthough a sizable minority wanted changes in their working lives.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 7

1 IntroductionThis report is about the aspirations and experience of part-time students in the UK. It is based on astudy commissioned by Universities UK and GuildHE (previously SCOP) now and conducted byProfessor Claire Callender of London South Bank University, the Policy Studies Institute, and GfKNOP.1.1 The policy contextIn 2002/03, 42 per cent of all higher education (HE) students in the UK were studying part-time andthis proportion dropped to 34 per cent amongst undergraduate students, which amounted to overhalf a million people. Evidence suggests that they are a growing element of the sector both in termsof their number and their diversity. For instance, between 1997/98 and 2003/04 part-time provisionhas grown by 45 per cent while full-time provision has grown by 12 per cent.Issues about part-time students, however, were largely overlooked in recent debates about studentfunding including the 2003 White Paper The Future of Higher Education (DfES, 2003) and thesubsequent legislation. The references to part-time students in the White Paper were in relation tothe need for more flexible provision to meet the skills gap. Yet, there was no detailed examination ofthe part-time student population and the issues concerning them. Nor was there discussion aboutwhat is needed to ensure greater flexibility of provision such as a national credit framework, or creditaccumulation transfer systems.This did not go unnoticed by the House of Commons Education Select Committee. In their report onthe White Paper (Fifth Report of Session 2002-03 HC 425-1) they commented:The White Paper is principally concerned with young, full-time students. The needs of those who falloutside that category must be properly taken into account if the higher education sector is to providetruly improved access (HC 425-1 p49).Similarly, part-time students were absent from the accompanying document to the White Paper –Widening Participation in Higher Education (DfES, 2003a). Nor do part-time students fall within theremit of Office of Fair Access (OFFA), which was set up by the 2004 Higher Education Act to ensure“the introduction of variable fees does not have a detrimental effect on widening participation”(http://www.offa.org.uk/about/ – accessed April 2006). However, the nature of OFFA’sresponsibilities means that no consideration is given to what impact, if any, higher tuition fees for fulltimestudents may have on part-time provision and part-time fees.Yet, the changes in student funding encapsulated in the 2004 Act, particularly the introduction ofvariable fees of up to £3,000 a year repayable on graduation, are likely to have implications for parttimestudents throughout the UK. Historically, the fees of part-time students have been linked on apro-rata basis to those of full-time students. With the rise in full-time students’ tuition fees in 2006 inEngland and the following year in Wales, it is unclear if this link can be maintained in the future andwhether the part-time market could sustain large increases in tuition fees, without some changes instudent support for part-time students.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 8

In part, as a response to these issues the Government announced, in July 2003, increased financialsupport for part-time undergraduate students in England and Wales, which came into force in2004/05 (DfES, 2004). 1 Part-time students studying 50% or more of a full-time course (ie, 60 creditsor more) and who do not already have an undergraduate degree or Level 4 qualification were to beentitled to:• A means-tested fee grant to contribute to the costs of tuition of up to £575 to replace fee waiversfrom HEIs. Students with incomes of less than £14,999 2 per annum are potentially eligible forthe full grant.• A means-tested course grant to contribute to the other course costs such as books, materialtravel etc, of up to £250 to replace a student loan of up to £500. Students with incomes of lessthan £19,587 3 a year are eligible for the full grant.• Discretionary support from the Access to Learning Funds, distributed by HEIs, if students arestudying a minimum of 10 per cent of a full-time course, to help with hardship and costs such aschildcare.• A Disabled Students Allowance.On 30 December 2004 another change to the fee grant was announced to come into force in2005/06, for students in England and Wales. For first time the amount of fee grant a student receivedtowards the cost of fees was to be linked to a students’ intensity of study (Table 1.1). Consequently,students studying the equivalent of 75 per cent of a full-time course would receive more money thanthose studying the equivalent of 50 per cent of a full-time course. Thus the maximum amount offinancial support available for fees would increase from £575 to £885 per year. This change appliedto both new and existing students.Table 1.1: Student supportFee grant for students studying 2005/06 2006/0750% – 59% FTE £590 £75060% – 74% FTE £710 £90075% or more FTE £885 £1,125Source: DfES (2005a) Briefing note: part-time student support package 2006/07The most recent set of reforms were announced in October 2005 and are to come into force in2006/07 for students studying in England only. 4 The main changes are as follows:1 Students undertaking postgraduate courses in England and Wales are not eligible for statutory studentsupport, except for those pursuing a PGCE. However, they may obtain financial help from the research councilsand from Career Development Loans. Northern Ireland has similar provisions to students in England and Wales,unlike students in Scotland.2 For a single students without dependent children.3 For a single students without dependent children.4 The Graham Review was set up in Wales to make recommendations on students support for part-timestudents in Wales. For a report by the authors exclusively on part-time students in Wales see Callender, C.Wilkinson, D. and Mackinon K (2006) Part Time Study In Higher Education In Wales: A Survey Of Students’Attitudes And Experiences Of Part Time Study And Its Costs 2005/06.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 9

• all three bands of the fee grant will increase by 27 per cent in cash terms (Table 1.1, finalcolumn);• the income threshold for receipt of both the course and fee grants will be increased above thelevel of inflation whereby a higher proportion of students potentially will be eligible for thesegrants;• Access to Learning Funds will quadruple – rising from £3m to £12m from 2006, and universitieswill have greater discretion over the use of these funds, especially to pay for rises in tuition fees.According to the DfES, a third of part-time undergraduates study at an intensity of 50 per cent ormore, so some 85,000 students potentially will be eligible for fee support (DfES, 2005a). However, asmaller proportion will receive the grants because they are means-tested.In addition, in November 2005 HEFCE announced that an additional £40 million for 2006/07 and2007/08 would be made available to HEIs in England to encourage participation and improveprovision for part-time students from the most under-represented groups. Distribution of theadditional £40 million individual higher education institutions was announced as part of the HEFCErecurrent grant announcement on 1 March 2006.The 2004 Higher Education Act and the provisions for part-time students described above, do notapply to Scottish domicile students studying in Scotland where student support arrangements aredifferent and are currently under review (Scottish Executive, 2003). After the Cubie Report (ICISF,1999), the most significant changes to part-timers’ support were as follows:• eligibility to discretionary Hardship Funds provided by HEIs – available since 1998/99;• loans of £500 for low-income students – available since 2000/01;• help with tuition fees for some low-income or unemployed undergraduate students; and• Disabled Student Allowance of up to £5,000 a year – available since 2000/01.The future development of viable fee policies and initiatives for part-time students throughout the UK,however, is hampered by our lack of knowledge about these students.1.2 Existing researchRelatively little research has been conducted on part-time students in contrast to the wealth of datacollected on full-time students. Few studies have examined, for instance: why they choose to studypart-time rather than full-time; their motivations for studying; the nature of their employment situation;the costs of study; the extent and sources of their financial support; and what factors may affect theirability to study.One of the most comprehensive quantitative studies of part-time students covering these issues wasconducted for National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (Dearing Committee) nearly adecade ago (Callender, 1997). This examined both full and part-time students’ experiences andexpectations of HE, focusing on the differences between these two student groups. Callender andKemp’s (2000) study for the DfES explored: the reasons full and part-time HE students went toPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 10

university; their choice of HEI and course; their perceptions of the costs of going to university; theextent of their financial difficulties; and their views about the social and economic returns of HE. Italso collected detailed data on students’ income, expenditure and debt. Since these studies wereundertaken, the HE landscape has undergone some radical changes and the policy context hasbeen transformed, with devolution. Consequently, both the studies are now out of date.The most recent quantitative studies on part-time students conducted by Open University (Woodley,2004) and HEFCE (2003) had a limited remit and focused primarily on fees in England. The 2004/05Student Income and Expenditure Survey (Finch et al, 2006) excludes students in Scotland. Like itspredecessor (Callender and Kemp, 2000), it has detailed information on students’ income andexpenditure but limited data on student attitudes to part-time study. However, the recently publishedNational Student Survey (NSS) has collected data on the views of full and part-time students aboutthe quality of their higher education experience (www.tqi.ac.uk). The NSS is designed primarily toinform prospective students and their advisers in choosing what and where to study, and collectsinformation from final year undergraduates. Questions on the NSS cover the following topics: theteaching on their course; assessment and feedback; academic support; organisation andmanagement; learning resources; personal development; and overall satisfaction. Students’ ratingsare available on these for each HEI in England and Wales by subject.Yet, a major drawback with all these studies is the narrow definition of part-time student adopted.Only undergraduates studying a minimum of 50% of a full-time course and without a Level 4qualification are included within the remit of these studies. 5 In other words, the majority – two-thirds– of the part-time undergraduate population are excluded from investigation. Consequently, ourknowledge about the part-time student population is partial, and confined to an atypical minority.It is against this background that Universities UK and GuildHE commissioned a programme ofresearch on part-time students.1.3 AimsThe overall aim of the study was to assess undergraduate students’ experiences of, and attitudestowards, part-time study and its costs in the UK today.To meet this aim the survey collected comprehensive data on:• Students’ motives, aspirations and choices including their reasons for studying; and their choiceof institution and course.• What influences their decision to study part-time as against full-time.• Students’ attitudes to the direct and indirect cost of study and tuition fee charges.• Students’ views on the benefits of study against the costs.• Students’ employment situation and level of support from employers.• How the above vary by students’ socio-economic characteristics, their type of course; and thecosts they incur.5 Not all the studies have excluded students who have a Level 4 qualification.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 11

1.4 MethodsAn online web-based survey of current undergraduate part-time students was conducted. A twostage sampling method was used. First, the HEIs for the sample of part-time students were drawnproportional to the number of part-time students studying at each HEI from a complete list of HEIs. Atotal of 25 HEIs were selected in this way. The selected HEIs then sent out an email, with a link tothe online survey, to all their part-time students, on behalf of the researchers. A total of 2,654students responded.The HESA definition of an undergraduate course was adopted for this study, in order to identify parttimeundergraduates. 6 The fieldwork was undertaken between November 2005 and January 2006by GfK NOP (For full details of the methodology see Appendix 2).1.5 Outline of reportThe remainder of this chapter describes the characteristics of the students surveyed. Chapter 2concentrates on students’ reasons for studying and the factors influencing their choice of HEI.Chapter 3 examines the costs of studying and who paid for these costs. Chapter 4 exploresstudents’ attitudes towards the costs of studying and student financial support, including estimates ofwhat students believe to be the optimum price of a part-time course and an assessment of the scopeand adequacy of student support. Chapter 5 describes in more depth students’ experiences ofstudying part-time, including the factors that are barriers to participation, students’ modes andpatterns of study, and use of university facilities. Finally, we examine students’ views on the socialand economic returns of their course, their evaluation of how far their course offered them value formoney, and what they intended to do on completing their course.1.6 Characteristics of the sample• There are 2,654 students in the sample.−−−−30% were studying at an old university47% were studying at a new university or institute of higher education16% at the Open University, and7% at a further education college.1.6.1 Socio-economic characteristics of students surveyedTable 1.2 shows the key characteristics of the students surveyed. Over half were:• women;• aged over 30 years old;• white;• English domicile;• living with a partner;6 HE students undertaking franchised courses at FE colleges were included within the remit of the study but noother HE students taking other sorts of undergraduate courses at FE colleges.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 12

• without dependent children;• employed full-time; and• living in a household where the chief income earner in the household worked in managerial andprofessional occupations.It is also noteworthy that over a third of the part-time students surveyed were graduates, whichsuggests that part-time undergraduate study is serving a number of purposes including re-trainingand learning for personal development for a sizable minority, as well as providing the opportunity togain an undergraduate qualification.The proportion of men and women in the sample and their age distribution, largely reflect thepopulation of all undergraduate part-time students throughout the UK (Appendix 2).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 13

Table 1.2: Socio-economic characteristics of students surveyedCharacteristic Per cent Base NGenderMale 39 1,022Female 61 1,632Age18-29 32 84530-39 32 86140-49 24 63350+ 12 315Ethnic originWhite 89 2,352Non-white 8 218Missing 3 84Country of domicileEngland 69 1,821Wales 3 78Scotland 19 502Northern Ireland 8 223Unknown 1 30Family TypeSingle no children 34 901Lone parent 6 165Couple no children 29 777Couple with children 31 811Entry qualification levelPostgraduate degree 7 187Undergraduate degree 29 761Level 3 37 985Level 2 18 488Level 1 or below 9 233Employment statusEmployed full-time 70 1,851Employed part-time 17 446Not employed 14 357Social class 7Managerial and professional 66 1744Intermediate 16 413Routine and manual and unemployed 13 331Missing 6 1667 The socio-economic classification used throughout the report is the National Statistics Socio-economicclassification (NS-SEC) which, from April 2001, was introduced for all official statistics and surveys. It hasreplaced Social Class based on Occupation and Socio-economic Groups (SEG). Managerial and professional –include large employers and higher managerial occupations, higher professional occupations and lowermanagerial and professional occupations. Intermediate – includes Intermediate occupations, small employersand own account workers. Routine and manual – includes lower supervisory and technical jobs; semi-routinejobs; routine jobs; and never worked and long-term unemployed. These social class categories should not beseen as strictly hierarchically ordered, nor should they be seen as reflecting mutual exclusivity in terms of bandsof income or other criteria.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 14

Socio-economic characteristics of studentssurveyed (cont)Personal income

Table 1.3: Institutional characteristics of students surveyedCharacteristic Per cent BaseNQualification aimHonours/Ordinary degree 72 1,914Foundation degree/HND/HNC/DipHE/CertHE 9 244Other 13 332None 6 164Expected duration of course1 year or less 13 3462 years 11 2833 years 13 3524 years 29 7755 years 18 4676 years or more 14 379Don’t know 2 52Year of study1 st 45 1,1862 nd 23 6173 rd 17 4464 th 10 2635 th + 5 142Intensity of study 8Less than 50 per cent FTE 17 43950-59 per cent 22 58760-74 per cent 8 21475-99 per cent 5 137100 per cent or more 6 158Don’t know 42 1,119Distance LearnerYes 28 745No 72 1,909Subject studiedMedicine, Dentistry and subjects allied to Medicine 9 249Biological and Physical sciences 6 171Mathematical and Computer sciences 10 261Engineering and Technology, Architecture 12 311Social sciences, Economics, Politics, Psychology, Masscommunication and documentation14 381Law 6 1468 Intensity of study is based on data about the number of credit points undertaken during the academic year.There is some variation across institutions in the number of credit points that constitute 100 per cent FTE study.We have standardised 100 per cent FTE as 120 credit points. To do this we have multiplied reported creditpoints by 20 for any student reporting credit points of six or less. There were 124 students who reported six orfewer credit points. We have also set the number of credit points to be 120, where the reported credit pointswas 20 or less, but the level of fees charged was greater than £720. This applied to 14 students. A further 25students reported credit points of more than 120, which indicates an intensity of study that was greater than 100per cent of full-time study.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 16

Institutional characteristics of students surveyed(cont)Business and administrative studies 13 347Linguistics, classics, languages, literature 7 175Historical and philosophical studies 5 140Creative arts and design 2 50Education 5 128Combined/multi-disciplinary 11 295All 100 2,654Base: All studentsSource: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 17

2 Reasons for studying2.1 Why students decided to study part-time rather than full-timeAll students were asked to rate how important a number of reasons were in their decision to studypart-time rather than full-time. Figure 2.1 shows the percentage of students who considered thereason very important. It is based on those students who reported that the reason was applicable tothem. For example, students who replied that they decided to study part-time because they could notgive up their job include students with jobs and exclude those without jobs. More detailed responseson the proportion of students considering these reasons fairly important, not very important, or not atall important are given in Table A.2.1 in Appendix 1. These conventions are repeated throughout thereport when discussing students’ attitudes.Figure 2.1: Percentage of students who reported that the given reason was very importantwhen deciding to study part-timeCould not afford to giveup job (2209)82%Wanted to work full-time(1322)64%Was more convenient(1425)60%Domestic/caringresponsibilities (760)45%Already studied full-time(1428)22%Doing course for interest(1515)16%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Base: The base figures are reported in parentheses following the reasons. They include all students that reportthe reason is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006• Students’ employment commitments and affordability had the largest influences on theirdecision to study part-time rather than full-time.• By far the most frequently mentioned very important reason students gave for choosing to studypart-time was they could not afford to give up their job, be it a full- or part-time job (82%) (Figure2.1). Those working full-time felt particularly strong about this compared to those with part-timejobs (86% compared with 70%).• Nearly two-thirds of students also cited as very important their desire to continue working fulltime,especially men rather than women (70% compared with 59%) as they were more likelythan women to work full-time.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 18

• Three in five students mentioned as very important the fact that part-time study was moreconvenient than studying full-time, especially those who had opted to study through distancelearning (67%) and students aged 40 and over (67% compared with for instance 52% of thoseaged 17-29). Students with dependent children were also far more likely than those withoutchildren to identify as very important the convenience of part-time study (66% compared with56%).• Overall, 45 per cent of students chose part-time study because of their domestic responsibilities,but this rose to 81 per cent among lone parents (91% of whom were women) and 68 per cent forpartnered students with dependent children. By contrast, only 14 per cent of single childlessstudents and 22 per cent of partnered students without dependent children mentioned this as avery important reason. In addition, students with part-time jobs (83% of whom were women)were more likely than students with full-time jobs (55% of whom were women) to identify thisreason (62% compared with 37%) which reflected the gender differences in part- and full-timeemployment.• Clearly, part-time provision plays a particularly significant role for those who can not move awayfrom home for family or employment reasons. Moreover, part-time study had to be fitted aroundthese realities and the other demands of students’ lives.2.2 Why students decided to do their course/qualification• All students were asked to rate how important a number of reasons were in their decision toundertake their particular qualification/course.• Students' strongest motives for undertaking their course were instrumental (Figure 2.2 – seealso Appendix 1, Table A2.2). They were largely associated with their desire to gain aqualification and to improve their labour-market prospects and career aspirations – concernslinked to the Lifelong Leaning agenda of ‘upskilling’.• But, they were able to combine this with intellectual factors, such as an interest in the subject,and a desire to be stretched intellectually or to continue studying.• The two very important reasons which students most frequently gave for choosing their coursewere a mixture of instrumental and intellectual reasons:− to gain a qualification (69%); and− their interest in the subject (61%).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 19

Figure 2.2: Percentage of students who reported that the given reason was very importantwhen deciding their courseGain qualification (2600)Interested in subject (2597)Develop skills (2609)Stretch me intellectually (2600)Get on in job/career (2222)Change job/careers (2266)Continue studying/learning (2487)Make up for missed opportunities (2193)Change of direction in my life (2261)69%61%59%55%53%49%44%41%40%Get a job (1728)29%To do something new/for fun (2117)To meet new people (2408)11%17%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Base: The base figures are reported in parentheses following the reasons. They include all students that reportthe reason is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006• Lone parents were especially keen on gaining a qualification – 80 per cent of them reported thatthis was a very important reason for undertaking their course, as did 78 per cent of studentswhose highest qualification at the start of their course was Level 1 or below and 78 per centstudying between 60-74 per cent of a full-time course.• Students taking courses of over 50 per cent of a full-time course were more likely than thosestudying for less than a half to give this reason (71% compared with 58%). And the youngerstudents were, the greater the likelihood that they would identify this reason as very important.Hence, 76 per cent of students under the age of 29 rated gaining a qualification as a veryimportant reason compared with 49 per cent aged 50 and over.• By contrast, older students (aged 50 and over) were much more likely than younger students(aged 29 and under) to cite interest in the subject as a very important reason for pursuing theircourse (80% compared with 56%).• Other student groups particularly motivated by an interest in the subject were those without jobs(78%); lone parents (73%); part-time employees (73%); and those with a Level 1 qualification onentry or those without any qualification (71%). And these groups, in part, were inter-related. Forinstance, lone parents were over-represented among non-working students, those working parttime,and those with low levels of entry qualifications.• The third most frequent reason students rated as very important for undertaking their coursewas instrumental. Some 59 per cent wanted to develop new or existing skills, especially loneparents (66%) and students with low qualifications on entry to HE (65%).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 20

• The fourth most common reason cited as very important, by 55 per cent of students, was theirdesire to be stretched intellectually. Once again, older people (aged 50 and over) mostfrequently gave this intellectual reason, followed by those who were not working (63%).• Interestingly, few students were motivated to pursue their qualification/course for social reasonsfor example for fun (17%), or to meet new people (11%).• These findings suggest that part-time students have very mixed reasons for studying dependingon the stage in their lifecycle, their labour market involvement, and existing educationalqualifications. However, their main motives for studying largely reflect those of full-time studentsfound in other studies (eg Unite, 2006).2.3 Why students chose their particular HEI/collegeFigure 2.3: Percentage of students who reported that the given reason was very importantwhen choosing the institution where they studyOffered the subject I wanted to study (2562)74%The course was at a convenient time (2338)60%Good academic reputation (2490)Near my place of work or home (1836)47%46%Particularly good for distance learning (1420)Employer directed me (829)Previously studied here (814)No local part-time courses (1447)Personal recommendation (1320)I liked what I saw at an open day (1083)Only institute which offered me a place (832)No entry qualifications required (1298)Cheaper course (1339)38%33%31%30%24%21%16%13%10%0% 20% 40% 60% 80%Base: The base figures are reported in parentheses following the reasons. They include all students that reportthe reason is applicable to themSource: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006• All students were asked to rate how important a number of factors where in their decision toattend their particular HEI/college.• Their choices were dictated by practical considerations rather than academic related ones suchas the academic reputation of the institution they attended.• Most part-time students were working and had familial ties, and consequently their choice ofinstitution, and to some extent their choice of course, were constrained and influenced by theserealities.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 21

• By far the most frequently cited very important reason students gave for choosing theirinstitution was that it offered the subject they wanted to study (74%). And this was especially thecase for lone parents (79%), students aged 50 and over (78%), and with a degree or higherqualification at the start of their course• Convenience affected the second and fourth very important issues students took intoconsideration when selecting a particular HEI/college – convenient timing of the course (60%)and the proximity of the institution to their home or work (46%) (Figure 2.3 – see also Appendix1, Table A2.3).• The timing of the course at the HEI of choice was particularly important for women rather thanmen (65% compared with 51%), those with low levels of qualification before starting their course(68%), and those pursing distance learning courses.• The institutions’ location was most important for lone parents – 53 per cent of whom cited thisreason.• The third very important factor influencing students choice of HEI/college was its academicreputation – mentioned by 47 per cent of students, especially those aged 50 and over (57%)and lone parents (57%).• Overall, only one in ten students said that a very important factor in their choice of HEI/collegewas the price of their course relative to other courses. However, it was a more frequently citedas an important issue for students on low or fixed incomes such as people aged 50 and over(17%), lone parents (15%), and non-working students (15%).2.4 ConclusionsAffordability was the key reason why students choose to study part-time rather than full-time as theycould not afford to give up their job, especially if working full-time. Other, pragmatic factors alsoshaped students’ decisions and choices. The vast majority were working and a sizeable minority alsohad family ties, and so their choices were both constrained and influenced by these commitments –part-time study had to be fitted around these realities and the other demands of their daily lives. So,students were drawn to part-time study because it was more convenient, particularly for studentswith children, and those choosing to study via distance learning courses. Convenience also affectedwhere they studied. They selected an HEI because the timing of the courses suited their existingcommitments and because of its proximity to work or home. However, the subjects on offer were themost common reason for choosing a particular HEI.Students’ motives for studying were primarily instrumental. Most important were their desire to gain aqualification and improve their skills, labour market and career prospects – concerns linked to theLifelong Leaning agenda of upskilling. However, they were also motivated by intellectual factors,such as an interest in the subject and a desire to be stretched intellectually or continue their learning.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 22

3 The costs of study3.1 Tuition/course fees3.1.1 The costs of tuition/course feesAll students were asked how much tuition fees they paid for their course for the entire academicyear, regardless of whether they paid for these fees themselves. Some 218 (8%) students did notknow the amount of tuition/course fees paid. A further 120 (5%) students reported that notuition/course fees were paid and so could not report on the level of their fees.• There were wide variations in the costs of fees – ranging from £0-£4,000, while the standarddeviation was £482 (Tables 3.1 and 3.2).• Of those students paying fees (irrespective of whether they paid these fees themselves), themean course fee paid was £821 for the academic year (Table 3.1 – 1 st line). However, a quarterof the students had fees amounting to £500 or less, a half had course fees of less than £800and half more than this, while another quarter had fees of £1,000 or more.• By contrast, in Woodley’s (2004 p14) study the average fee was just £584 in 2004 while in the2004/05 SIES it was £725 (Finch et al 2006, p145). However, both these studies are based ondifferent samples of part-time students when compared with the UUK study, and so are notstrictly comparable. Both Woodley and the 2004/05 SIES studies excluded from their sampleany student studying less than half a full-time course and students studying outside of Englandand Wales. 9 In addition, SIES excluded students with a level 4 qualification. So care should betaken when making comparisons.• Figure 3.1 shows the overall distribution of fees paid and illustrates that students’ course/tuitionfees for the academic year most frequently cost between £500 and £999.• Table 3.1 and 3.2 also look at how the costs of tuition varied by students’ key characteristicsand the nature of their course. The students incurring the most costly fees were studying 75 percent or more of a full-time course while those with the cheapest fees were on courses notleading to a qualification.• Those students incurring the highest fees, at least £100 above the average, were:− studying 75 per cent or more of a full-time course – average fee £1,037;− on courses lasting 3 years – average fee £952;− on courses lasting 4 years – average fees £949; and− studying between 60-74 per cent of a full-time course – average fee £926.• Given the way fees are often linked on a pro-rata basis to full-time fees, it is not surprising thatstudents studying the most intensively, incurred the highest fees. In addition, thesecharacteristics were inter-related. Students studying more than 60 per cent of a full-time coursewere over-represented among students who expected their course to last either three or fouryears.9 In the 2005/06 SIES, data for students in England are reported separately from data for students studying inWales.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 23

• Those students incurring the lowest fees, at least £100 below the average, were:− on courses not leading to a qualification – average fees £433;− on short courses of 1 year or less – average fees £544;− on a course lasting 6 years or more – average fee £607;− not employed – average fees £638;− on a distance learning course – average fees £658;− aged 50 or over- average fees were £676; and− on courses leading to an ‘other’ qualification – average fee £684.• Again, the characteristics of some of these students were inter-related. The majority (71%) ofstudents on courses which did not lead to a qualification were on short courses which lasted ayear or less. In addition, students on short courses were over-represented among distancelearners. Nearly a half (49%) of them were studying through distance learning, and yet distancelearners formed just 27 per cent of all the students surveyed. Students without paid employmentwere over-represented amongst students aged 50 and over, students not studying towards aqualification, and those taking courses lasting six years or more.Figure 3.1:The distribution of fees paid by students8%5%15%22%NoneLess than £500£500 - £999£1,000 - £1,499£1,500 or more50%Base: All students that report a value for fees paid.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 24

Table 3.1: Amount of course/tuition fees paid by socio-economic characteristics: Mean anddistributionBase 10Mean25 thMedian75 thPercentilePercentile££££All 2,436 821 500 800 1,000GenderMale 960 867 576 888 1,100Female 1,476 790 500 780 1,000Age17-29 778 907 600 900 1,10030-39 782 809 536 800 1,00040-49 581 794 500 750 1,00050+ 295 676 420 600 960Family typeSingle no children 828 866 590 900 1,033Lone parent 150 760 520 700 923Couple no children 713 825 500 800 1,000Couple with children 745 778 500 740 1,000Entry qualificationlevelPostgraduate degree 172 759 352 600 1,000Undergraduate degree 700 844 500 850 1,000Level 3 898 844 582 825 1,000Level 2 444 785 500 773 1,000Level 1 or below 222 772 500 750 1,000Employment statusEmployed full-time 1,697 875 587 880 1,100Employed part-time 409 743 495 650 960Not employed 330 638 450 600 900Social classManagerial and1,592 846 540 835 1,000professionalIntermediate 385 824 500 800 1,000Routine and manual 307 785 500 775 1,000and unemployedMissing 152 616 450 590 854Base: All students that report a value for fees paid.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 200610 Excludes all students who did not know the amount of fees they paidPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 25

Table 3.2: Amount of course/tuition fees paid by institutional characteristics: Mean anddistributionBase 11Mean25thMedian75thPercentilePercentile££££All 2,436 821 500 800 1,000Qualification aimHonours/ordinarydegreeFoundationdegree/HND/HNC/DipHE/CertHE1,779 872 590 880 1,000223 836 568 850 1,100Other 291 684 305 550 900None 143 433 150 350 500Intensity of study 12Less than 50 per398 570 300 500 856cent FTE50-59 per cent 560 692 500 596 85060-74 per cent 200 926 750 850 1,00075 per cent or more 281 1,037 800 1,000 1,200Don’t know 997 911 600 906 1,100Expected durationof course1 years or less 304 554 207 500 7502 years 250 869 500 785 1,1003 years 317 952 600 880 1,2004 years 725 949 800 960 1,1005 years 432 800 600 800 1,0006 years or more 360 607 490 581 700Distance learnerYes 689 658 410 500 850No 1,747 885 600 900 1,050Base: All students that report a value for fees paid.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 200611 Excludes all students who did not know the amount of fees they paid.12 Intensity of study is based on data about the number of credit points undertaken during the academic year.There is some variation across institutions in the number of credit points that constitute 100 per cent FTE study.We have standardised 100 per cent FTE as 120 credit points. To do this we have multiplied reported creditpoints by 20 for any student reporting credit points of six or less. There were 124 students who reported six orfewer credit points. We have also set the number of credit points to be 120, where the reported credit pointswas 20 or less, but the level of fees charged was greater than £720. This applied to 14 students. A further 25students reported credit points of more than 120, which indicates an intensity of study that was greater than 100per cent of full-time study.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 26

3.1.2 The average costs of tuition/course fees standardised to full-time equivalentAs we have seen, students were studying for different qualifications and for a different number ofcredits in 2005/06 (Table 1.3). In order to standardise the costs of fees, we divided the fee given by astudent by the number of credit points 13 they were studying, and then multiplied this figure by 120.This gives a “fee per full-time equivalent (FTE)” for the whole academic year.In addition to the 218 students who do not know the amount of fees paid, there were 997 studentswho did not know the number of credit points they are studying for during the academic year and 55students who reported zero credit points. Thus, we can only calculate a full-time equivalent level oftuition fees for 1,384 students.• Again, there were wide variations in the costs of FTE fees – ranging from £0-£6,600, while thestandard deviation was £873.• Table 3.3 shows for those students surveyed who declared both a fee and the number of creditpoints studied, the mean fee per FTE over the academic year was £1,480. For half the studentsthe fees were less than £1,200 and for half, more than this sum. This is roughly equivalent to thefee of £1,175 set by the Government for 2005/06 for full-time students.• Tables 3.3 and 3.4 also show that the FTE costs of tuition varied by students’ key characteristicsand the nature of their course. The students with the most expensive FTE fees wereundertaking courses less than 50 per cent FTE while those with the cheapest FTE fees weretaking a course 75 per cent or more FTE.• Those groups of students incurring the highest fees, at least £100 above the average, are notnecessarily the same as the groups paying the highest non-standardised fees. They includedstudents:− undertaking courses of less than 50 per cent FTE – average FTE fees £1,958;− undertaking course lasting four or three years – average FTE fees £1,644 and £1,633respectively;− not on a distance learning course – average FTE fees £1,604; and− men – average FTE fees £1,582.• The finding that the most expensive courses are those constituting less than a half a full-timecourse is interesting. It suggests that there may be a financial premium for such courses.• Those students incurring the lowest FTE fees, at least £100 below the average, were:− undertaking courses of 75% FTE or more – average FTE fees £1,174;− not employed – average FTE fees £1,205;− on a course lasting six years or more – average FTE fees £1,274;− on a distance learning course – average FTE fees £1,286;− not studying towards a qualification – average FTE fees £1,28913 Intensity of study is based on data about the number of credit points undertaken during the academic year.There is some variation across institutions in the number of credit points that constitute 100 per cent FTE study.We have standardised 100 per cent FTE as 120 credit points. To do this we have multiplied reported creditpoints by 20 for any student reporting credit points of six or less. There were 124 students who reported six orfewer credit points. We have also set the number of credit points to be 120, where the reported credit pointswas 20 or less, but the level of fees charged was greater than £720. This applied to 14 students. A further 25students reported credit points of more than 120, which indicates an intensity of study that was greater than 100per cent of full-time study.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 27

− on short courses lasting one year or less – average FTE fees £1,321;− starting their course with a Level 2 qualification – average FTE fees £1,336− aged 50 or over – average FTE fees £1,361; and− studying towards an ‘other’ undergraduate qualification – average FTE fees £1,367.• There is some correlation between the factors associated with low FTE fees. A quarter ofstudents without jobs were taking courses lasting 6 years or more compared with just 12 percent of full-time employees and 16 per cent of part-time employees. And students on distancelearning courses were twice as likely as those on courses delivered through face-to-face tuitionto be on courses they expected to last six years or more (22% compared with 11%). In addition,distance learners were more than twice as likely as non-distance learners to be taking a coursewhich did not lead to a qualification (11% compared with 5%).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 28

Table 3.3: Full-time equivalent level of fees by socio-economic characteristics: Mean anddistributionBase 14Mean25 thMedian75 thPercentilePercentile££££All 1,384 1,480 1,000 1,200 1,760GenderMale 529 1,582 1,050 1,300 1,893Female 855 1,417 1,000 1,200 1,600Age17-29 359 1,529 1,000 1,200 1,80030-39 468 1,483 1,040 1,200 1,80040-49 357 1,494 1,000 1,200 1,80050+ 200 1,361 976 1,200 1,532Family typeSingle no children 413 1,526 1,000 1,300 1,800Lone parent 102 1,405 1,000 1,176 1,600Couple no children 409 1,515 1,000 1,200 1,800Couple with children 460 1,424 1,000 1,200 1,600Entry qualificationlevelPostgraduate degree 97 1,537 1,000 1,200 1,910Undergraduate degree 362 1,549 1,040 1,290 1,800Level 3 517 1,514 1,010 1,200 1,800Level 2 284 1,336 1,000 1,200 1,570Level 1 or below 124 1,425 990 1,187 1,556Employment statusEmployed full-time 912 1,556 1,080 1,320 1,864Employed part-time 245 1,453 990 1,180 1,575Not employed 227 1,205 905 1,150 1,400Social classManagerial and881 1,525 1,034 1,250 1,815ProfessionalIntermediate 213 1,510 1,000 1,200 1,800Routine and manual 181 1,385 1,000 1,200 1,600and unemployedMissing 109 1,222 940 1,120 1,350Base: All students that report a value for fees paid and credit points.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 200614 Excludes all students who did not know the amount of fees they paid, and students who paid no fees.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 29

Table 3.4: Full-time equivalent level of fees by students’ institutional characteristics: Meanand distributionBase 15Mean25 thMedian75 thPercentilePercentile££££All 1,384 1,480 1,000 1,200 1,760Qualification aimHonours/ordinarydegreeFoundationdegree/HND/HNC/DipHE/CertHE1,087 1,516 1,020 1,230 1,80082 1,380 960 1,200 1,500Other 136 1,367 993 1,180 1,475None 79 1,289 990 1,090 1,400Intensity of study 16Less than 50 per343 1,958 1,200 1,500 2,550cent50-59 per cent 560 1,366 1,000 1,180 1,66060-74 per cent 200 1,410 1,140 1,290 1,58075 per cent or more 281 1,174 895 1,169 1,493Expected durationof course1 years or less 165 1,321 990 1,180 1,5002 years 104 1,506 1,000 1,350 1,6623 years 166 1,633 1,045 1,300 2,0004 years 331 1,644 1,120 1,466 2,0005 years 287 1,530 1,090 1,230 1,7606 years or more 291 1,274 1,000 1,180 1,400Distance learnerYes 538 1,286 990 1,090 1,400No 846 1,604 1,164 1,371 1,920Base: All students that report a value for fees paid and credit points.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 20063.1.3 Who pays for students’ tuition/course feesStudents were asked who paid for their course/tuition fees and what proportion of their fees was paidby each source.15 Excludes all students who did not know the amount of fees they paid, and students who paid no fees.16 See above for the way in which intensity of study was calculated.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 30

Table 3.5: Who paid the tuition fees by sourceFees paid byPer cent withfees paidMean£Amount where fees paidMedianN£Self 59 701 620 1,468Family and friends 3 556 480 72Bank loan/ Career1 * * 17development loanEmployer 35 892 850 747Fee13 673 600 301Waiver/financialassistanceschemeOther 4 625 550 81Base 2,534* indicates insufficient observations to provide a robust figureBase: All students excluding those who paid no fees.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006• Table 3.5 shows the percentage of students receiving contributions towards their tuition/coursefees from the different sources.• The students themselves most frequently paid for their tuition/course fee costs – nearly threein five did, with each one paying an average of £701 over the academic year. Of those payingfees, a half paid less than £620 and half of them more than this sum.• However, it is worth noting that overall, two in five of all part-time students surveyed paidnothing out of their own pocket towards the costs of their tuition/course fees.• There was no clear-cut relationship between the likelihood of a student paying some or all oftheir own fees and their personal or household annual income. However, students withpersonal incomes over £35,000 were more likely than those with lower personal incomes topay for their own fees (71% compared with 56%).• The second most common contributor to course/tuition fees was employers. Over a third ofstudents (35%) (whether or not they were employed) had some of their fees paid by theiremployer (Table 3.5). This compared with 41 per cent found in Woodley’s (2004 p14) studyand 19 per cent found in the 2004/05 SIES study (Finch et al, 2006 p145).• Of those students employed, 40 per cent received some help from their employer towards thecosts of their fees. Those employed full-time were two and a half times more likely than thosewith part-time jobs to receive such financial help – (45% compared with 17%).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 31

• By contrast, in Woodley’s (2004 p14) study, 58 per cent of full-time employees had some or allof their fees paid their employer while Callender (1997) found the proportion was 53 per cent.But it must be remembered that both Woodley and Callender’s studies only included studentson 50 per cent + FTE courses.• Employers spent an average of £892 on fees. However, they spent slightly more than themean at £910 on their full-time employees but less than the mean on their part-timeemployees at £689.• So the key beneficiaries of employers’ financial support for fees were those in full-time jobs,the majority of whom were men (82% of men worked full-time compared to 62% of women).Thus, men (40%) were more likely than women (31%) to be beneficiaries of employer financialsupport.• However, when women worked full-time, they were more likely than their male peers to receivehelp from their employer with the costs of their tuition/course fees (48% compared with 42%)but less likely when they worked part-time (8% compared with 19%).• Moreover, employers were most likely to sponsor students taking vocational qualifications. Forinstance, nearly a half of those taking a foundation degree/HND/HNC/DipHE/CertHE receivedhelp compared with only 23 per cent taking no qualification, and 33 per cent studying towardsa first degree.• Employers did not necessarily help finance the studies of their lowest or highest paidemployees. The students most likely to receive help with their fees had personal annualincomes of between £20,000- £24,999 – a half of whom benefited from employer support withtuition costs. Students with incomes above or below these sums were less likely to obtain helpfrom their employer.• However, there was a linear relationship between receiving tuition fee help from an employerand household income. The higher the household income up to £49,999 per annum, thegreater the likelihood of getting employer financial support. Thus, students with annualhousehold incomes of between £35,000-£49,000 were three and half times more likely to befinanced by their employer than students with household incomes of £15,499 or less (49%compared with 14%). In other words, the wealthiest students benefited the most from employersupport.• Finally, 13 per cent of students had some of their fees waived or paid for through a financialassistance scheme. The mean contribution form this source towards the costs of course/tuitionfees was £673.• Of those students who had some of their fees waived, they were most likely to have receivedhelp through a Government grant (80%) or from their HEI/college (15%).• Lone parents were the student group most likely to have their fees paid via grants or throughtheir HEI/college – nearly a half did (49%), followed by those without paid employment (39%).And the lower the students’ household income the greater the likelihood of obtaining suchfinancial support. For example, 48 per cent of students with a household income of £15,499 orPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 32

less received this aid compared with two per cent in households with annual incomes of£50,000 or over, suggesting that such financial aid was well targeted.3.1.4 Typology of fee payingTable 3.5 gives an indication on who contributed towards the costs of students’ tuition/course feesand how much they contributed on average. However, it gives no indication of whether thesemonies covered all, or just part, of the total costs of tuition. This is shown in Figure 3.2.Figure 3.2: Typology of fee payment15%3%8%46%100% Self100% Family/friends100% Employer100% Waiver100% OtherMixed27%1%Base: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Figure 3.2 shows that 85 per cent of students had all their fees paid (ie, 100%) from a single sourcewhile 15 per cent of students received money to pay for their tuition/course fees from more thanone source.For the vast majority of the 15 per cent of students, who have fees paid from multiple sources, partof their fees were paid by the student themselves with a contribution from another source, typicallyfrom their employer or from a fee waiver.Together Figure 3.2 and Table 3.5 show that:• 46 per cent of students paid for 100 per cent of their tuition/course fees themselves and theyeach paid an average of £803, while 13 per cent paid for just some of their fees.• The students most likely to pay for all their fees out of their own pockets had high personalannual incomes of £50,000 (80%) 17 or more, were aged 50 or over (64%), not studying17 Only 56% of students with household incomes of £55,000 and over paid for 100% of the fees themselves.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 33

towards a qualification (62%) and on courses worth less than 60 credits – under 50 per centFTE.• 27 per cent of all students (irrespective of whether or not they were employed) had all theircourse/tuition fees paid by their employer who paid an average of £1,013, while eight per centhad their fees partially paid for by their employer.• 31 per cent of employed students had their tuition fees paid in full by their employer. Andagain, students employed full-time rather than part-time were more likely to get their totaltuition/course fees paid by their employer. Three times as many full- as part-timers had 100%of their fees paid by their employer – 35 per cent compared with 12 per cent. So again, overallmen rather than women were more likely to benefit (33% compared with 23%). But again,women working full-time were just as likely as their male colleagues working full-time toreceive this help.• The proportion of students getting employer help was lower than the proportion found byWoodley (2004 p15) in his study where 51 per cent of students employed full-time had all theirfees paid for them by their employer.• In our study, apart from students working full-time, those most likely to have had all their feespaid by their employer in full were: studying towards a vocational qualification (39%) and agedunder 29 years old (34%).• Where employers paid for 100% of their full-time employees’ fees the average amount paidwas £1,023 while for part-time employees it was £871.• Eight per cent of all students had all their fees waived and so paid no tuition/course fees at all.Four per cent only had a proportion of their fees paid for by a grant or their university. The keybeneficiaries were students with household incomes of £15,499 or less per annum – 34 percent had all their fees paid for them from this source.3.2 Other course costsThe vast majority of students have to pay for other course costs, on top of any tuition fees. So allstudents were asked about any additional direct and indirect study costs they encountered over theacademic year.3.2.1 Type of course costs• Table 3.6 shows that 91 per cent of students had some additional study costs, apart fromtuition fees, however some students on distance learning courses did not incur all these costs.• The most common costs mentioned by a quarter or more students were:− Purchasing books (82%).− Travel to and from their place of study (60%).− Computer costs (36%).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 34

• Overall, these additional study costs came to a mean of £625 over the academic year for thosestudents incurring these costs, but for half of them, these costs amounted to less than £350over the academic year.• The equivalent figure in Woodley’s study (2004, p19) was £321 for all students incurring a costwhile in the 2004/05 SIES the equivalent figure for all students (irrespective of whether theyspent money on an any item) was £889 (Finch et al, 2006, p138).• Looking at the average amount spent on each item, whereas the most common item ofexpenditure was books, in terms of actual costs, childcare and computers were the mostexpensive (a mean cost this academic year of £888 and £372 respectively), followed byregistration fees (£308). However, childcare and registration costs were paid by a smallproportion of the students surveyed.• A further indirect cost was incurred by some employed students. Just over a quarter (27%) ofthem had reduced their hours of work in order to pursue their part-time study and thus,experienced a drop in earnings. This was particularly the case for students employed part-timeat the time of the survey who were more than twice as likely as those working full-time to havereduced their working hours (51% compared with 21%), and especially women in part-timejobs (57% compared with 50% part-time male workers). However, we have not attempted toput a monetary value on students’ loss of earnings.Table 3.6: Other course costs by typePercentage ofstudents incurringcostMean amount incurred£Median amountincurred £Books 82 134 100Travel 60 282 150Computers 36 372 200Special16 145 50equipment andmaterialsChildcare 8 888 500Residential4 285 250courseField trips 6 214 110Registration fees 10 308 100Exam fees 6 177 100Other 8 121 50None 9 0 0Any costs 91 625 350Base 2,654Base: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 35

3.2.2 Who pays the other course costsStudents also were asked who paid for their additional course costs and what proportion of thesecosts was paid by each of them.• Table 3.7 shows the percentage of students receiving contributions towards their study costsfrom the different sources. The vast majority (91%) of students contributed towards thesecosts themselves – with each one paying out an average of £517, while a half paid less than£300 and half more than this sum.Table 3.7: Who paid these course costsFees paid byPer cent whopaid costsfrom eachsourceMean£Amount where fees paidMedianBase£Self 91 517 300 2,203Family and friends 5 436 156 126Loan 1 * * 18Employer 14 447 214 340Government5 280 200 132grant/bursaryNHS bursary 1 * * 26Disability2 * * 45StudentsAllowanceStudent loan 18 1 * * 6University/college 2 * * 40Other 1 * * 25Base 2,420* indicates insufficient observations to provide a robust figureBase: All students who incurred other course costs.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006• The second most frequent contributor to course costs was employers. Around one in seven(14%) of all students had some of their study costs paid for by their employer.• This figure rose to 17 per cent for those in employment, and rose even further to 19 per centfor students in full-time jobs, but dropped to 6 per cent for those with part-time jobs.Consequently, the main beneficiaries were more likely to be men than women.18 Only asked for the 434 students studying at universities in Scotland.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 36

• Employers spent an average of £447 on these costs while half spent less that £214. Studentsemployed full-time received an average of £455 from their employer and those employed parttimejust £350.• When Table 3.7 is compared to Table 3.5, it is quite clear that responsibility for meeting theadditional costs of study lay with the students themselves.3.2.3 Other help from employersAs we have seen, the vast majority of part-time students were employed (87%) and they weredoing their course on a part-time basis because of their work commitments. These employedstudents were asked a series of questions about any further help they received from theiremployer.• 35 per cent of working students were given paid time off work in order to study, and this figurerose to 40 per cent for those working full-time, but fell to 16 per cent for those working parttime.Overall, more men than women were given paid time off (38% compared with 33%) andthis was because of their patterns of employment. A similar proportion of men (39%) andwomen (41%) employed full-time benefited, but a much larger proportion of men than womenworking part-time received this support (17% compared with 7%).• 16 per cent of working students were given unpaid time off work in order to study. This figurefell to 15 per cent for those working full-time, and rose to 22 per cent for those working parttime.Overall, there were no gender differences in the proportion of men and women receivingunpaid time off but there were in relation to their hours of employment. Hence, the sameproportion of male and female full-time employees were given unpaid time off work to studybut male part-time employees were less likely than their female colleagues to get unpaid timeoff (21% compared with 31%) because they were more likely to get this time off paid for bytheir employer.• So clearly, this additional help was primarily given to those in full-time jobs, who are morelikely to be men than women. However, women working full-time were just as likely as theirfull-time male colleagues to get paid, and unpaid, time off work to study.3.3 Total study costsThe total costs of studying were calculated by adding together tuition/course fees and other studycosts.3.3.1 Average total study costs• Table 3.8 (1 st line) shows that the mean total study costs (ie, tuition and other course costs) forstudents incurring these costs, irrespective of whether they paid these costs themselves,amounted to £1,385 over the academic year. A quarter of students had costs of £740 or under,a half had costs under £1,175 and a half more than this sum, while a quarter had costs of£1,710 or more.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 37

• Of the total costs, 59 per cent was spent on tuition fees and the remaining 41 per cent othercourse costs.• According to the 2004/05 SIES (Finch et al, 2006 p116), the equivalent total costs amounted toan average of £1,614 but only for students without a Level 4 qualification, attending HEIs inEngland and studying 50% of more FTEs. However, in Woodley’s (2004 p22) study theyamounted to just £836 on average.• Tables 3.8 and 3.9 also show how these total study costs varied by students’ keycharacteristics and the nature of their course. The students with highest total study costs werestudying 75 per cent or more FTEs while those with the lowest total study costs were taking acourse that, at the time of the survey, did not lead to a specified qualification.• The student groups with the highest total costs, at least £100 above the average, includedstudents:− studying over 60-74 per cent or 75 per cent FTE or more – average costs £1,598,£1,688 respectively;− lone parents – average costs £1,665;− on courses lasting three, four, and five years – average costs £1,528, £1,639 and£1,529, respective;− undertaking courses by face to face contact – average costs of £1,528; and− on a first degree course – average costs £1,499.• Given that most of students’ total costs were being driven by their costs of tuition, it is notsurprisingly that those with the greatest workloads had the highest costs. Nor is it surprisingthat these groups largely reflect those with the highest tuition fees (section 3.1.1).• Those students with the lowest total study costs, at least £100 below the average, were:− on courses which did not lead to a qualification – average costs £692;− on courses lasting one year or less – average costs £852;− on distance learning courses – average costs £1,023;− on courses leading to a ‘other’ qualification – average costs £1,067;− on courses lasting six years – average costs £1,160; and− aged 50 or over – average costs £1,245.• Again, these students groups are the same groups as those paying the lowest fees discussedabove (section 3.1.1).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 38

Table 3.8: Average total costs by students’ socio-economic characteristics: Mean and distributionBase 19Mean25 thMedian75 thPercentilePercentile££££All 2,436 1,385 740 1,175 1,710GenderMale 960 1,419 796 1,230 1,797Female 1,476 1,364 720 1,148 1,660Age17-29 778 1,450 915 1,260 1,78730-39 782 1,403 733 1,140 1,72740-49 581 1,346 703 1,148 1,70050+ 295 1,245 550 1,000 1,550Family typeSingle no children 828 1,391 860 1,240 1,725Lone parent 150 1,665 837 1,215 1,792Couple no children 713 1,292 672 1,110 1,650Couple with children 745 1,412 700 1,140 1,750Entry qualificationlevelPostgraduate degree 172 1,369 496 925 1,728Undergraduate degree 700 1,370 743 1,200 1,750Level 3 898 1,425 837 1,203 1,750Level 2 444 1,313 717 1,130 1,648Level 1 or below 222 1,430 738 1,203 1,700Employment statusEmployed full-time 1,697 1,382 800 1,200 1,730Employed part-time 409 1,439 693 1,149 1,708Not employed 330 1,334 628 1,068 1,675Social classManagerial and1,592 1,394 750 1,200 1,705professionalIntermediate 385 1,386 840 1,180 1,723Routine and manual 307 1,388 716 1,160 1,800and unemployedMissing 152 1,285 600 1,000 1,553Base: All students that report a value for fees paid and for other costs.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 200619 Excludes all students who did not know the amount of fees they paid.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 39

Table 3.9: Average total costs by students’ institutional characteristics: Mean and distributionBase 20Mean£25 thPercentile£Median£75 thPercentile£All 2,436 1,385 740 1,175 1,710Qualification aimHonours/ordinarydegreeFoundationdegree/HND/HNC/DipHE/CertHE1,779 1,499 900 1,260 1,780223 1,337 800 1,150 1,720Other 291 1,067 495 855 1,420None 143 692 232 470 906Intensity of study 21Less than 50 per398 944 378 715 1,240cent50-59 per cent 560 1,174 611 958 1,41160-74 per cent 200 1,598 1,040 1,325 1,74875 per cent or more 281 1,688 1,086 1,450 1,989Don’t know 997 1,552 963 1,350 1,860Expected durationof course1 years or less 304 852 321 650 1,1582 years 250 1,310 700 1,093 1,6463 years 317 1,528 890 1,240 1,9004 years 725 1,639 1,075 1,425 1,8855 years 432 1,529 908 1,270 1,8006 years or more 360 1,160 600 900 1,350Distance learnerYes 689 1,023 500 730 1,280No 1,747 1,528 956 1,300 1,800Base: All students that report a value for fees paid and for other costs.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 200620 Excludes all students who did not know the amount of fees they paid.21 Intensity of study is based on data about the number of credit points undertaken during the academic year.There is some variation across institutions in the number of credit points that constitute 100 per cent study.We have standardised 100 per cent study as 120 credit points. To do this we have multiplied reported creditpoints by 20 for any student reporting credit points of six or less. There were 124 students who reported six orfewer credit points. We have also set the number of credit points to be 120, where the reported credit pointswas 20 or less, but the level of fees charged was greater than £720. This applied to 14 students. A further 25students reported credit points of more than 120, which indicates an intensity of study that was greater than100 per cent of full-time study.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 40

3.3.2 Average total study costs paid by students out of their own pocketTables 3.8 and 3.9 give an indication of the average total costs involved in studying part-time. Bycontrast, Tables 3.10 and 3.11 show how much students personally paid, out of their own pockets,for their studies.• Students, incurring tuition fees and other study costs, paid an average of £951 out of their ownpocket for their part-time course over the academic year. A quarter spent £320 or less, a halfpaid under £730 and a half more than this sum, while a quarter had costs of £1,337 or more(Table 3.7).• These amounts may be a little lower than expected, but it should be recalled that two in fivestudents paid no fees at all.• Tables 3.10 and 3.11 show how these total study costs varied by students’ key characteristicsand the nature of their course. The students who personally had to pay the most for their parttimestudies expected their course to last 4 years while those paying the least out of their ownpockets were taking a course that did not lead to a qualification.• Those student groups incurring the highest costs, at least £100 above the average, includedstudents:− who expected their course to last for four years – average costs £1,260;− who already had a post graduate degree before starting their current course –average costs £1,099;− who were taking 75 per cent or more of a full-time course – average costs £1,073;and− 60-74 per cent of a full-time course – average costs £1,056.• These student groups, who have to pay the largest sums out of their own pocket, are slightlydifferent from the student groups with the highest fees (sections 3.1.1) and total study costs(section 3.3.1).• In addition, these groups are to some extent inter-related. Of those students who expectedtheir course to last 4 years, 30 per cent were taking courses 75 per cent of a full-time coursewhile this was the case for just 20 of all students with such workloads.• Those students with the lowest total study costs paid for out of their own pocket, at least £100below the average, were:− taking a course that did not lead to a qualification – average costs £590;− on a short course lasting one year or less – average costs £595;− taking an ‘other’ undergraduate qualification – average costs £688;− on a course lasting 2 years or 3 years less – average cost £728 and £843;− on a distance learning course – average costs £713; and− taking a sub-degree course including a foundation degree, HNC/NHD, DipHE/CertHE– average costs of £798.• There is more of an overlap between the student groups incurring the lowest fees and thoseincurring the lowest total study costs. As we have seen in relation to tuition fees (sectionPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 41

3.1.1), the majority (71%) of students on courses that did not lead to a qualification were onshort courses, and short course had a particularly high take up amongst distance learners. Infact, the majority of students on courses of one year or less were students taking an ‘other’undergraduate qualification (41%) or not taking a qualification at all (34%).Table 3.10: Costs incurred by socio-economic characteristics: Mean and distributionBase 22Mean25 th PercentileMedian75 th Percentile££££All 2,191 951 320 730 1,337GenderMale 861 959 300 700 1,350Female 1,330 947 334 740 1,328Age17-29 678 897 279 693 1,30030-39 718 985 309 768 1,37540-49 527 968 350 755 1,35550+ 268 966 405 780 1,347Family typeSingle no children 753 965 306 750 1,369Lone parent 123 929 275 800 1,350Couple no children 631 898 333 709 1,280Couple with children 684 990 330 733 1,335Entry qualificationlevelPostgraduate degree 161 1,099 455 875 1,535Undergraduate degree 619 931 300 725 1,350Level 3 805 966 335 740 1,350Level 2 409 904 325 690 1,268Level 1 or below 197 934 253 650 1,298Employment statusEmployed full-time 1,534 932 300 720 1,306Employed part-time 378 1,016 388 790 1,350Not employed 279 967 303 800 1,400Social classManagerial and1,435 960 322 750 1,350ProfessionalIntermediate 360 1,004 370 810 1,400Routine and manual 267 940 300 670 1,310and unemployedMissing 129 735 218 560 1,092Base: All students that report that they paid some of their costs of study.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 200622 Excludes all students who did not know the amount of fees they paid.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 42

Table 3.11: Costs incurred by students’ institutional characteristics: Mean and distributionBase 23Mean25 th PercentileMedian75 th Percentile££££All 2,191 951 320 730 1,337Qualification aimHonours/ordinarydegreeFoundationdegree/HND/HNC/DipHE/CertHE1,639 1,035 375 880 1,415187 798 200 550 1,150Other 240 688 200 514 964None 125 590 218 415 698Intensity of study 24Less than 50 per359 746 250 500 1,050cent50-59 per cent 500 840 400 630 1,10660-74 per cent 183 1,056 450 940 1,43975 per cent or more 261 1,073 401 975 1,588Don’t know 888 1,039 300 858 1,433Expected durationof course1 year or less 255 595 150 435 8552 years 227 728 226 564 1,0803 years 275 843 250 560 1,2034 years 675 1,260 550 1,138 1,6505 years 390 953 300 768 1,3256 years or more 330 883 362 650 1,143Distance learnerYes 585 713 300 539 900No 1,606 1,038 344 900 1,431Base: All students that report that they paid some of their costs of study.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 200623 Excludes all students who did not know the amount of fees they paid.24 See earlier footnotes for how this was calculated.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 43

3.4 Students’ incomeThese expenditure figures need to be put in some context, namely, by looking at part-timestudents’ incomes.3.4.1 Gross personal annual income• Around a third of students’ average gross personal income was less than £15,499 per annum(Table 3.12).• The students groups most likely to have the lowest incomes were those in part-timeemployment (66%) and without paid employment (59%), especially men (63%).• Those with the highest personal incomes had started their current course with a postgraduatequalification – 14 per cent them had incomes of £50,000 or more.Table 3.12: Gross personal income of students surveyedPer cent BaseIncomeN

Table 3.13: Gross household income of students surveyedPer cent BaseIncomeN

4 Attitudes to the costs of study and student support, and theadequacy of student support4.1 Optimum tuition/course fee price for part-time studentsWe assess the optimum tuition fee price for maximising participation by using price sensitivitymodelling, following van Westendorp. This approach compares students’ answers to the followingquestions:• At what price would your course be too expensive to even consider taking?• At what price would your course be so cheap that you would doubt its quality?By cumulating the response to these questions it is possible to say for any price the percentage ofstudents who say the course is ‘too expensive to consider’ and the percentage of students who sayit is ‘too cheap to trust’. Where these percentages are equal is the price that maximises thepercentage of students who will accept the course.Figure 4.1 plots these cumulative percentages and indicates that the optimum fee price is around£600 for the academic year. At this price, roughly 14 per cent of students report that their coursewould be too expensive and 14 per cent report that they would doubt the quality of their course.Figure 4.1: Cumulative percentages of students reporting that their course would be tooexpensive and the price would indicate a course quality problem by possible course price100%80%60%40%20%0%£0 £200 £400 £600 £800 £1,000 £1,200 £1,400 £1,600 £1,800 £2,000Quality ProblemToo expensive to buyBase: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Figure 4.1 also shows that half of the students reported that the course would become tooexpensive at £1,400 or less, whilst the average value at which the course would become tooexpensive was £1,666.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 46

Students not studying for a qualification (£1, 097), distance learners (£1,296) students on a courseexpected to last one year or less (£1,236) or six years or more (£1,317) and unemployed students(£1,352) on average reported lower than average values for the price at which the course wouldbecome too expensive.High earning students were more likely, on average, to report higher values at which a coursewould become too expensive. For students earning £50,000 or more per year the average value atwhich their course would become too expensive was £2,099, and students earning £35,000 to£50,000 the average value was £1,977. Students on a course expected to last three years (£1,975)or four years (£1,886) also reported, on average, higher than average values for the price at whichthe course would become too expensive.The data were re-calculated to assess the optimum tuition/course fee price only for students takingan undergraduate degree. The results indicated a slightly higher optimum price at around £700.These findings are very interesting when considered in relation to the actual tuition fees paid by thestudents surveyed, and the current fee levels for full-time students. As we have seen, the medianfee paid by the students surveyed was £800 while the average was £821 (Table 3.1). Thus theseresults suggest that either current fees levels have been set at just above the optimum level thatwould maximise participation.An alternative explanation is that the optimum level of fees derived by this methodology may bepartly determined by the amount of fees paid, that is because some students report the amount offees they actually pay as the amount at which the course would be too expensive and/or too cheap.There is some evidence to support this idea. We split the sample into quartiles of fees paid and findthat students in the bottom quartile of the fees distribution (those paying £500 or less) had anoptimum tuition/course fee price of £400, whilst students in the second quartile (those paying £500to £800) had an optimum tuition/course fee price of £600, students in the third quartile (thosepaying £800 to £1,000) had an optimum tuition/course fee price of £800, and students in the topquartile (those paying £1,000 or more) had an optimum tuition/course fee price of £1,000.We also considered the optimum tuition/course fee price by the intensity of study. For studentsstudying a course of less than 50 per cent of a full-time equivalent course the optimumtuition/course fee price was just over £400. Meanwhile, for students studying a course of 50 percent or more of a full-time equivalent course, the optimum tuition/course fee price was roughly£800.4.2 Optimum tuition fee price and the role of student supportStudents were subsequently asked whether the price at which the course became too expensivewould change if an interest free loan was made available to cover their tuition fees, which wasrepayable after completing their course but only when earning more than £15,000 a year. 44 percent of students reported that such a price would change.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 47

Figure 4.2 indicates that such a loan would not change the optimum tuition fee price. This isbecause for most students the price at which the course would become too expensive was abovethe optimum price.Figure 4.2: Cumulative percentages of students reporting that their course would be tooexpensive and the price would indicate a course quality problem by possible course priceand if an interest free loan were available to cover tuition fees100%80%60%40%20%0%£0 £200 £400 £600 £800 £1,000 £1,200 £1,400 £1,600 £1,800 £2,000Quality ProblemToo expensive to buyBase: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Figure 4.2 shows that under this scenario half of the students reported that the course wouldbecome too expensive at £1,500 or less, £100 more than without a loan, and the average value atwhich the course would become too expensive also increased by around £100 to £1,764.Similarly students were asked whether the price at which the course became too expensive wouldchange if a non-repayable means-tested grant of £1,000 was made available. Under this scenario63 per cent of students reported that such a price would change. However, again Figure 4.3indicates that this would not change the optimum tuition fee price. This is again because for moststudents the price at which the course would become too expensive was above the optimum price.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 48

Figure 4.3: Cumulative percentages of students reporting that their course would be tooexpensive and the price would indicate a course quality problem by possible course priceand if a non-repayable means-tested grant of £1,000 was made available100%80%60%40%20%0%£0 £200 £400 £600 £800 £1,000 £1,200 £1,400 £1,600 £1,800 £2,000Quality ProblemToo expensive to buyBase: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Figure 4.3 shows that under this scenario half of the students reported that the course wouldbecome too expensive at £1,500 or less, the same as if a loan were available. Here the averagevalue is also similar to if a loan were available at £1,775.Finally students were asked whether the price at which the course became too expensive wouldchange if a mixture of a non-repayable means-tested grant and an interest free loan were madeavailable. Under this scenario 46 per cent of students reported that such a price would change.However, again Figure 4.4 indicates that this would not change the optimum tuition fee price.Figure 4.4 also shows that with a mixture of a grant and a loan half of the students reported that thecourse would become too expensive at £1,500 or less, the same as if either one were available inisolation. However, the average value at which the course would become too expensive with agrant and loan available was higher than if just one of them was available at £1,835.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 49

Figure 4.4: Cumulative percentages of students reporting that their course would be tooexpensive and the price would indicate a course quality problem by possible course priceand if a mixture of a non-repayable means-tested grant and an interest free loan were madeavailable100%80%60%40%20%0%£0 £200 £400 £600 £800 £1,000 £1,200 £1,400 £1,600 £1,800 £2,000Quality ProblemToo expensive to buyBase: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 20064.3 Student support 254.3.1 Nature of student supportThe changing nature of financial support for part-time students in England, Wales and NorthernIreland was outlined in Chapter 1, Section 1.1 and so will not be repeated here. At the time thesurvey was conducted, in the 2005/06 academic year, part-time students were potentially eligiblefor two means-tested grants: a grant for tuition fees of up to a maximum of £885 with varyingamounts depending on the students’ intensity of study (Table 1.1); and a course grant to meet thecosts of books, travel and other course expenditure of up to £250. As Table 1.1 also shows, nextyear the tuition fee grants will increase by 27 per cent (DfES, 2005a).Eligibility for these two grants is restricted to a narrow definition of part-time, namely, to studentsstudying 50 per cent or more of a full-time course across their years of study, and/or students whodo not already have a Level 4 qualification or above. In addition, the grants are means-tested anddepend on the students’ own income, their partner’s income, and the number of dependentchildren. The way these grants are calculated is outlined in the DfES guide to student support for25 The following analysis in sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.3 excludes students studying and living in Scotland becausetheir financial support arrangements are different from students elsewhere in the UK.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 50

part-time students. If a student has a partner, their partner’s gross income is added to the student’sincome. Then, just like income tax, deductions are made from this amount as follows:• Student’s personal allowance £14,969• Allowance for partner £2,000• Allowance for first/eldest dependent child £2,000• Allowance for each subsequent dependent child £1,000To receive full support, a student’s household income must be less than £14,970 (after thedeductions listed above) and if it is between £14,970 and £22,000 partial help is available on asliding scale, reducing their tuition fee grant, and then their course costs grant.Thus, students may be ineligible for this student support because of their intensity of study (ie,studying less than 50%), and/or they have already an undergraduate degree or higher qualification,and/or their household income is too high.In addition, students studying at least 10 per cent FTEs are eligible for discretionary hardshipsupport from the Access to Learning Fund.4.3.2 Students’ eligibility for course and fee grantsThere are, therefore, three main eligibility criteria for the main sources of student support:• intensity of study;• level of entry qualification; and• income.The effects of these three eligibility criteria will be examined in turn.• Intensity of studyTo identify eligibility for student support we therefore need data on entry qualification, personal andhousehold income, and number of children as well as intensity of study. Thus we can only deriveeligibility for 1,470 (69%) of the surveyed students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 26Roughly one-fifth of these students were not eligible for student fee and course grants becausethey studied for less than 50 per cent of a FTE course.Thus, in policy terms, it is important to examine whether there were any major differences betweennon-eligible and eligible students – namely, those students studying less that 50 per cent of a fulltimecourse and more than 50 per cent (60+ credits).There were no significant differences between these two student groups in terms of their gender,age and whether or not they were distance or non-distance learners.26 This is because such a large proportion of students did not know the number of credits they were studyingfor plus other missing data on for instance, income.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 51

However, there were significant differences in relation to: gender; family type; level of entryqualification; employment status; social class; qualification aim; expected duration of course andincome.The following students groups were over-represented among those studying less than 50 per centof a full-time course compared with those studying more than this:• students whose highest qualification at the start of the current course was a first degree orhigher (31%);• students on courses not leading towards a qualification (61%) and on ‘other’ undergraduatescourses (38%);• students on courses of one year or less (40%); and• students with a personal annual income of £35,000 and over (30%) and household incomes of£50,000 and over (30%).In contrast, the following students groups were under-represented among those studying less than50 per cent of a full-time course compared with those studying more than this:• lone parents (16%);• students without paid employment (17%);• students from the lowest social classes (19%);• students on courses last three years (15%) and five years (16%); and• students with personal (19%) and household (15%) incomes of less than £15,499 per annum.These findings suggest that the most vulnerable students financially were not excluded from thetwo main sources of student support because of their intensity of study.• Level of entry qualificationAnother group of students ineligible for student support are those who already have a Level 4qualification at the start of their course. Overall, one third of surveyed students had a Level 4qualification, but for the sample of students for whom we could calculate eligibility for studentsupport this represents 48 per cent of students. Eight per cent of students already had a Level 4qualification and studies for less than 50 per cent of a FTE course, hence, 61 per cent of studentswere excluded from student grants because they had a Level 4 qualification and/or were studyingfor less than 50 per cent of a full-time course.When these students were examined together with those studying less than 50 per cent of a fulltimecourse, we see that very similar student groups are affected, as those discussed above. Thus,there were no significant differences between students studying less than 50 per cent without aLevel 4 qualification and those studying more than this also without a Level 4 qualification in termsof their gender, age and whether or not they were distance or non-distance learners.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 52

Overall, just under a quarter (21%) of the students surveyed who did not have a Level 4qualification were studying on courses of less than 50 per cent while the remaining 79 per centwere studying 50 per cent or more of a full-time course (N=850).The following students groups were over-represented amongst those who did not have a Level 4qualification who were studying on courses of less than 50 per cent:• students who had no qualification at the start of the current course or whose highestqualification was a Level 1 (26%);• students on courses not leading towards a qualification (52%) and on ‘other’ undergraduatescourses (33%);• students on courses of one year or less (39%); and• students with a personal annual income of between £15,500 and £19,999 (28%) and between£25,000 and £49,000 (28%) and those with annual household incomes of between £25,00-£34,999 (27%) and £50,000 and over (26%).In contrast, the following students groups were under-represented among who did not have a Level4 qualification and were studying on courses of less than 50 per cent:• lone parents (14%);• students without paid employment (14%);• students on courses last 3 years (13%) and 5 years (12%); and• students with personal (16%) and household (12%) incomes of less than £15,499 per annumand those with personal incomes of £50,000 and over (13%).These findings also suggest that some of the most vulnerable groups were not excluded from thetwo main sources of student support because of the eligibility criteria – but some were, in particularstudents with very low levels of qualifications or without any qualifications at the start of theircourse.• IncomeThe above analysis looked at which students groups were ineligible for tuition fee grants andcourse grants because they failed to meet two of the eligibility criteria, namely, they were studyingless than 50 per cent of a full-time course and/or possessed a Level 4 qualification at the start oftheir course. Here our analysis turns to examine the additional impact of the third criteria – income– and the effects of means-testing on eligibility for the grants.Using data on students’ household income (Table 3.13) and data on the number of dependentchildren students have, these students can be divided into three categories: those who would beentitled to full support; those entitled to partial support; and those who would be eligible to nosupport because they are studying less than 50 percent, have a Level 4 qualification, and havehousehold incomes above the eligibility threshold. 2727 Again this analysis excludes students in Scotland and those for whom data on intensity of study andincomes are missing.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 53

A further 16 per cent of the surveyed students were ineligible for the fee and course grantsbecause their incomes were above the eligibility threshold. Thus, in total 77 per cent of all thestudents surveyed were ineligible for these grants leaving just 23 per cent who were eligible – 14per cent were eligible for the full grants and 9 per cent a partial grant.Those most likely to be eligible for such support were:• lone parents (63% – 54% full; 9% partial);• students with household incomes of less than £15,499 per annum (63% – all full support);• students with household incomes of between £15,500 and £19,000 per annum (49% – 14%full; 35% partial);• students with a personal income of less than £15,499 per annum (49% – 41% full; 8% partial);• students with no qualification on entry or a level 1 (47% – 32% full; 15% partial);• students whose highest qualification on entry was a level 3 (47% – 32% full; 15% partial); and• students with household incomes of between £20,000 and £24,999 per annum (44% – 5% full;39% partial).So clearly those eligible for these grants were at the margins financially and educationally, andfinancial help was being targeted at those most in need.4.3.3 Adequacy of student supportOur analysis shows that the majority of the students surveyed were ineligible for any statutorystudent support. A further issue, therefore, is the adequacy of the support provided for the minoritywho are eligible. In other words, to what extent did the course grant cover the costs studentsincurred, and to what extent did the fee grants cover the tuition fees charged by HEIs.• Course grantThe course grant is designed to contribute to the additional costs of study, apart from tuition fees.The maximum a student can receive is £250. The value of the grant has not changed since it wasfirst introduced in 2004 and thus is being eroded by inflation.In our study the average course costs, for those potentially eligible for this grant, was £597. Some58 per cent of students had course costs exceeding £250. So for the majority of students surveyedwho would have received this help, the grant was just a partial contribution towards their costs.• Tuition fees grantThe findings from our study also suggest that the tuition fee grant did not cover the average feescharged by HEIs in 2005/06, for those students who would have received a grant. As Table 4.1shows, the fee charged by HEIs 28 (last column) exceeded the value of the fee grant, which bringsinto question the adequacy of the grant.28 Note the fees charged by HEIs may be different from the fees students paid out of their own pocket.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 54

Table 4.1: Average fees charged by HEIs compared with the value of the fee grantsValue of tuition fee grant 29Average feecharged by HEIsfor studentssurveyed eligiblefor fee grant 30Students studying 2005/06 2006/07 2005/0650% – 59% FTE £590 £750 £64160% – 74% FTE £710 £900 £94375% or more FTE £885 £1,125 £983Base (N) 327Base: All students eligible for tuition fee grants.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006(Nb. The level of fees recorded in this survey do not take account of any future fee increases that might occur,especially following the rise of full-time fees in 2006/07. In part, in recognition of this, the grant was increasedin value by 27 per cent for 2006/07. However, even with these rises, the enhanced grant would not cover thecurrent value of fees charged by HEIs for those students surveyed studying 60-74 per cent of a full-timecourse. )Table 4.2 illustrates the proportion of students experiencing a ‘shortfall’ between the fees they werecharged and the fee grant they would have received. It shows the extent of the inadequacy of thegrant to cover all fee costs. Over a half (53%) of all students surveyed were charged fees thatexceeded the value of the 2005/06 tuition fee grant. However, this figure rose to 85 per cent ofstudents studying 60 – 74 per cent of a full-time course, and to 63 per cent of those studying 75 percent or more of a full-time course.Looking forward to 2006/07, and if we assume that tuition fees remained constant and did not rise(even with inflation), then 28 per cent of students would have fees that exceeded the enhanced feegrant for 2006/07.These ‘shortfalls’ can be contrasted with the 100 per cent support full-time students will receivewith the costs of their fees from 2006/07.29 DfES (2005a) Briefing note: part-time student support package 2006/07.30 Ibid.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 55

Table 4.2: Percentage of students surveyed being charged fees greater than the value of thefee grantsValue oftuition feegrant 31Percentageof studentsbeingcharged feesgreater thanthe value ofthe fee grantValue oftuition feegrant 32Percentageof studentsbeingcharged feesgreater thanthe value ofthe fee grantStudents studying 2005/06 2005/06 2006/07 2005/0650% – 59% FTE £590 40% £750 25%60% – 74% FTE £710 85% £900 38%75% or more FTE £885 63% £1,125 28%All students 53% 28%Base (N) 327 327Base: All students eligible for tuition fee grants.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 20064.3.4 Attitudes to student support 33All students were asked some attitudinal questions about student financial support where they hadto state whether they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements.First, they were asked about the adequacy of student support. Just over one in five (22%) agreedwith the statement “financial support for part-time students is adequate”. while just under a half(47%) of all students disagreed, and the remaining third were undecided (Appendix 1, Table A4.1).The student group most likely to think support was adequate were lone parents (33%) followed bythose with those without a qualification at the start of their course or whose highest qualificationwas at Level 1. However, interestingly lone parents were also one of the groups most likely todisagree with the statement. Other groups that were more than average to disagree included:• 54 per studying between 60-74 per cent of a full-time course;• 50 per cent from intermediate social classes;• 50 per cent with personal incomes of less than £15,499 (while only 30% with personal incomesover £50,000 disagreed); and31 DfES (2005a) Briefing note: part-time student support package 2006/07.32 DfES (2005a) op cit.33 The following analysis includes all students surveyed, wherever they lived and studied.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 56

• 49 per cent of lone parents.Next students were asked about student loans. They were not particularly supportive of them as atool for improving student support. Some 38 per cent of all students agreed with the statement “Ifinterest free loans were available to cover my tuition fees and were only repayable once I hadcompleted my course and I was earning over £15,000 a year, I would take one out”, 44 per centdisagreed while the remaining 18 per cent were undecided (Appendix 1 Table A4.1)The students most supportive of loans, who were most likely to report that they would take one out,were those with low incomes including:• 49 per cent with personal incomes of less than £15,499 a year (compared with 38% of thosewith incomes between £15,500 and £19,999, and just 19% with incomes over £50,000);• 47 per cent in part-time employment (compared with 35% in full-time jobs and 44% withoutjobs);• 47 per cent with no qualification or a Level 1 qualification – the lower their entry qualificationthe more likely they were to agree (compared with 31% with a postgraduate qualification and33% with a degree);• 46 per cent in the lowest occupations (compared with 41% in intermediate level occupationsand 36% with managerial and professional occupations).4.4 ConclusionsThe optimum tuition fee price estimated to maximise student participation for a course eachacademic year was about £600, and for those taking a first degree it was slightly higher at around£700. And, this price remained unchanged even when taking into account the potential availabilityof income contingent student loans, means-tested grants, or a mixture of loans and grants. This isbecause for most students the price at which the course would become too expensive was abovethe optimum price.£800 was the median tuition fee actually paid by the students surveyed while the average was£821, which suggests that either current fees levels have been set just above the optimum level inorder to maximise participation, or that the optimum level of fees is partly determined by theamount of fees paid.The optimum price also is roughly equivalent to the fees for 0.5 FTE for a first degree at currentprices. If part-time fees are to be linked pro-rata to future full-time fees of £3,000, they would haveto rise well above the optimum price found in this study, which may affect participation levels.Although the optimum price remained unaffected by the potential availability of different types ofstudent support, that was not the case for the average price at which the course would become tooexpensive to consider taking – £1,666. This average price rose by £100 with the availability of anincome contingent loan for tuition fees or a £1,000 means-tested grant, and by £169 with a mixtureof a grant and loan.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 57

Just over one in five students thought that financial support for part-time students adequate, butthey were unsupportive of income contingent loans with only 38 per cent willing to take one out, ifavailable.An estimated 77 per cent of the students in this study were ineligible for a course or fee grant – themain sources of student support to which part-time students are entitled. Of those eligible, 14 percent would have received full grants and 9 per cent partial grants.Neither of these grants covered the majority of eligible students’ full costs. Some 58 per cent ofstudents incurred course costs exceeding the maximum course grant of £250 while 53 per werecharged tuition fees that exceeded the maximum value of the 2005/06 fee grants. Even withenhanced grants for 2006/07, 28 per cent of students still would have had fees in excess of thegrant.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 58

5 Experiences of studying part-timeAs suggested in Chapter 1, very little research has been conducted on part-time students’experiences of HE. The recently published National Student Survey (NSS) has collected data onthe views of full and part-time students about the quality of their higher education experience.Questions on the NSS cover the following topics: the teaching on students’ course; assessmentand feedback; academic support; organisation and management; learning resources; personaldevelopment; and overall satisfaction (www.tqi.ac.uk). Given that these issues are covered by theNSS, it was decided not to collect data on them in this study. Rather, we were more concerned withthe obstacles faced by part-time students and on insights into their daily lives as students.5.1 Barriers to participation in students’ courseStudents, who are currently studying at an HEI, by definition, have overcome the initial barriers toaccessing and participating in HE. However, they may still face other obstacles that prevent themfrom participating fully in their course, or that make it difficult for them to participate in their course.Figure 5.1: Percentage reporting either a lot or to some extent a difficulty in courseparticipation by type of difficultyToo busy at work (2253)Too busy at home (2497)More time consuming than expected (2582)Time management/study skills (2539)83%77%71%65%Coursework more difficult than expected (2547)Lack of employer’s support (1975)Cost was difficult to afford (2044)Too much coursework / assignments (2528)Fell behind with my assignments (2406)Inadequate advice and support from staff (2459)51%47%45%41%39%36%Offered at an inconvenient time (2202)25%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Base: The base figures are reported in parentheses following the items. They include all students that reportthe item is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Figure 5.1 illustrates the hurdles that the students surveyed faced which made participating in theircourse difficult. Here we report on the factors that they rated as causing a lot or some difficulty,which were applicable to them. The full results are given in Appendix 1 Table A5.1.• By far the most significant obstacles to students’ full participation in their courses – mentionedby at least half of students – were associated with a lack of time. Time poverty affected aPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 59

higher proportion of students than financial poverty although this was also an issue for asizeable minority of students.• Students’ work and domestic commitments encroached on the time they could devote to theirstudies. However, in part this was because students had unrealistic expectations about theamount of time they would need to devote to their studies. This suggests that a sizableproportion of students were ill informed in advance of their studies about what their courseinvolved. Furthermore, this was exacerbated by their lack of time management and studyskills, which suggests an important training gap in students’ skills.• The two obstacles most frequently mentioned by the vast majority of students as leading todifficulties were:− too busy at work (83%); and− too busy at home (77%).• Students working full-time rather than part-time were particularly likely to affected by their workcommitments (86% compared with 76%) while students with children were most often affectedby commitments at home, especially lone parents in contrast to single students withoutchildren (91% compared with 66%). There was a tendency for students to be more affected bythese pressures the greater their intensity of study but the relationship was not linear, as mightbe expected. Students studying between 60-74 per cent of a full-time course were the mostpressurised by the demands of work (89%) and home (68%).• The third and fourth barriers causing students difficulties, and which prevented them from fullparticipating in their course, were also associated with time, especially managing their time.They were:− course was more time consuming than expected (71%); and− problems with time management/study skills (65%).• Lone parents and students from the intermediate social classes were most likely to find theircourse more time consuming than expected (76%) while problems with timemanagement/study skills also most frequently affected by lone parents (76%). There washowever, no obvious relationship between students’ work load as measured by their intensityof study and time management issues.• The fifth barrier most frequently reported by 51 per cent of all respondents was that theircoursework was more difficult than expected. The most telling factor affecting this was thelevel of student’s highest qualification before starting their course. The lower their qualification,the greater the likelihood they would experience problems, and the higher their qualificationthe lower the likelihood they would experience this barrier. Hence, 63 per cent of students witha Level 1 or no prior qualification faced difficulties compared with 45 per cent of students witha first degree or higher qualification.• Financial issues were a hurdle to participating fully in a student’s course for a minority ofstudents, with 45 per cent identifying costs as difficult to afford. However, they wereparticularly an issue for low income students. Indeed, the lower the students’ income (personaland household) the greater the likelihood that they would report the costs being a difficultly.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 60

For instance, 64 per cent of students with annual household incomes of less than £15,500encountered this problem compared with just 26 per cent of students with household incomesof £50,000 and over. In addition, financing their course was an obstacle to participation for themajority of lone parents (62%); women working part-time (58%); women (50%); students whobefore starting their course had no prior qualification or whose highest qualification was atLevel 1 (50%); students without jobs (50%) – all student groups with low incomes.5.2 Other constraints on studentsFigure 5.2: Percentage of students reporting they definitely or mostly agree with followingstatements about study constraintsStruggle with study andother commitments(2624)78%Staff recognisepressures (2579)62%Not enough time tostudy (2625)62%Worry about costs ofstudy (2117)40%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Base: The base figures are reported in parentheses following the items. They include all students that reportthe item is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006• The other constraints voiced by students echoed the barriers to participation discussed above.Thus, over three quarters of students (78%) agreed that “it is often a struggle juggling part-timestudy with my other commitments” and 62 percent agreed that “I often do not have enoughtime to devote to my studies” (Figure 5.2, Appendix 1 Table A5.2). Lone parents, employedstudents and women were particularly likely to experience these pressures but there were nodifferences by students’ intensity of study.• For most students, staff at their HEI/college recognised the pressures they were under. Sixtytwoper cent of students agreed with the statement that “staff recognise the pressures ofcombining part-time study with employment, family and other activities”, although just over onePart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 61

in five (22%) students disagreed with this statement and so must have been having aparticularly difficult time (Figure 5.2, Appendix 1 Table A5.2). This echoes the finding above(Figure 5.1, Appendix 1 Table A5.1) that 36 per cent of students think that inadequate adviceand support from staff was a barrier to their participation.• Only a minority of students – 40 per cent – worried about the costs of study. However, 54 percent of lone parents were worried about the costs as were 55 per cent of students withhousehold incomes of less than £15,500 per annum and those with incomes between£15,500-£19,999 (in contrast to just 22% among students with household incomes of£50,000+).5.3 Length and intensity of study5.3.1 Expected duration of courseTable 1.3 shows how long students expected their course/programme of study to last, whichreflected their qualification aim and their intensity of study. Nearly a quarter anticipated that theircourse to last two years or less with half of these on short courses lasting a year or less. A further60 per cent thought their course would last between two to five years and another further 14 percent six years or more.5.3.2 Intensity of study 2005/06 academic yearTable 1.3 also shows that a sizeable minority of students – 42 per cent – did not know how manycredits they were taking in the 2005/06 academic year. This is an important finding in its own right.It also has implications for the take-up of student support. Some 17 per cent of students werestudying on courses of less than 50 per cent of a full-time course (ie, less than 60 credit points) in2005/06. A further 22 per cent were studying on a course between 50 to 59 per cent of a full-timecourse (ie 60 to 70 credit points), 8 per cent were on courses 60 to 74 per cent of a full-timecourses (ie 71 to 89 credit points), 11 per cent 75 per cent or more of a full-time course (ie, 90 to120 credit points or over).5.3.3 Number of credits completed to dateStudents not studying for a qualification and students in their first year of study had not completedany credits, thus 45 per cent of students recorded no credits completed at the time of the survey.Furthermore, 45 per cent of students in their second year or later who were studying for aqualification did not know how many credit points had been completed at the time of the survey.For the remaining students who reported credit points, 32 per cent had completed 60 points or less;26 per cent had completed more than 60 points, but less than or equal to 120 points; 27 per centhad completed more than 120 points, but less than 240 points and 15 per cent had completed 240points or more.5.3.4 Total number of credits required for qualification55 per cent of students studying for a qualification did not know how many credit points wererequired to achieve the qualification. For the remaining students, 58 per cent reported that thenumber of required credit points was 360. This is not surprising since three-quarters of the studentswere studying for an honours or ordinary degree. The remaining students were spread across aPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 62

ange of credit points with 37 per cent reporting 60 credit points or less, 18 percent reportingbetween 60 and 120 credit points, 26 per cent reporting between 120 and 240 credit points and 19per cent reporting between 240 and 360 credit points.5.4 Modes of study and patterns of study5.4.1 Modes of study• The majority (72%) of the part-time students surveyed were on traditional courses deliveredthrough face-to-face contact between lecturers and students, while 28 per cent were oncourses the majority of which was taught through distance learning and of whom, 57 per centwere studying at the Open University.• Of those students taught face-to-face, similar proportions (47%) were and were not taughtalongside full-time students, while six per cent of students were unclear about the teachingarrangements. Courses leading to a first degree were most likely to have such ‘in fill’. Thus,54 per cent of students studying for a degree were taught alongside full-time studentscompared with 32 per cent on foundation degree/HNC/HND/Higher Ed/Cert Ed courses; 29per cent on course not leading to a qualification; and 17 per cent on ‘other’ undergraduatecourses. Arguably, courses not dependant on ‘in fill’ are potentially the most vulnerable wherepart-time fees are considerably lower pro-rata than full-time fees.• Figure 5.3 shows that for most students (55%), irrespective of whether they were taught faceto-faceor via distance learning, their courses did not involve a wide variety of teachingarrangements. The most popular arrangement, however, was day release, especially amongyoung male students aged under 29 (43%).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 63

Figure 5.3: Percentage of students reporting their courses involves the following elementsDay release22%Workplace learning12%Fieldwork/field courses7%Residential component6%Day schools5%Weekend schools5%Block release3%None of the above54%0% 20% 40% 60%Base: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 20065.4.2 Average hours spent studyingStudents were asked how many hours on average they spent studying, including any face-to-facecontact they had with teaching staff, and independent study.• Mean hours of study were 15 hours per week and the median was 13 hours per week.• Figure 5.4 shows the distribution of students’ hours of study. Nearly a quarter (23%) studiedless than 10 hours a week but over a quarter (27%) studied 20 hours or over each week.• However, these average hours of study varied by students’ employment situation. Studentswithout jobs worked longer hours than those with jobs – some 18 hours per week (median 16hours) compared with a mean of 14 hours (median 12 hours) for working students.• And the more hours students worked, the less time they spent studying. Hence studentsemployed full-time worked a mean of 14 hours a week and median of 12, while students withpart-time jobs studied a mean of 15 hours per week and median of 15.• Average hours of study also varied by the intensity of study. Students on a course of less than50 per cent full-time equivalence studied on average 12 hours per week (median 10 hours perweek) whilst students on a course of 50 per cent or more full-time equivalence studied onaverage 16 hours per week (median 15 hours per week).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 64

Figure 5.4:Distribution of hours of study27%23%Less than 1010 to 1415 to 1920 or more20%30%Base: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 20065.4.3 Where students studyAs well as students being asked how long they studied every week, they were also asked wherethey studied (Table 5.1).• Nearly all (98%) the students’ surveyed studied at home, and it was at home that they spentthe most time studying – on average nine hours a week. One can assume that while studyingat home, they were engaged in private independent study.• The next most popular place for studying was at the students’ university, most of this time,averaging six hours a week, presumably would have been spent in face-to-face contact withteaching staff.• Only a minority of all students studied either in their university library (38%) or while at work(36%).• However, 41 per cent of employed students spent some time studying at their work place andthis figure rose to 45 per cent of full-time employees, but dropped to 24 per cent of part-timeemployees.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 65

Table 5.1: Where students study: Mean and distributionPer centMean hours ofMean hours ofMedian hoursstudying instudystudyof studylocation(all students)(students(studentsusingusinglocation)location)University 66 4 6 5Home 98 9 9 8Work 36 1 3 2University library 38 1 3 2Public library 7 + 2 1Other 7 + 2 2Base: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 20065.5 Use of university services and facilitiesStudents were asked which university services and facilities they used through face-to-facecontact, by email, telephone or website, and how frequently they had used these facilities since thebeginning of the academic year (Figure 5.5).Figure 5.5: Percentage of students who reported that they used the following servicesoccasionally or frequentlyOnline resources (2615)90%Library (2591)IT facilities (2566)Catering (2110)67%73%79%Registry/Exam office (2489)49%Finance office (2390)Students' union (2512)30%29%Careers (2401)Student welfare services (2487)Sports facilities (2054)Childcare (1700)10%8%6%1%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Base: The base figures are reported in parentheses following the items. They include all students that reportthe item is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 66

• The findings suggest the importance of developments in new technology, especially onlineservices, for part-time students irrespective of whether they are distance learners or taughtface-to-face. Part-time students’ reliance on such facilities is just one way in which theymanage the demands of studying part-time and their work and domestic commitments.• These findings also highlight the importance of university libraries which traditionally managethese online resources. Thus, while only a minority of students actually study in their universitylibrary (Table 5.1), the vast majority use their university library.• As Figure 5.5 shows the most popular services and facilities used occasionally or frequently,by over a half the students, were:− the university’s online resources (90%);− library (79%);− IT facilities (73%); and− catering (67%).• And it was the online resources and the library that were used most frequently (Figure 5.6).• Not surprisingly students’ access and use of these services varied by whether their course wasdelivered face-to-face or through distance learning.• A similar proportion of non-distance and distance learners used their university’s on lineservices but a higher proportion of students taught face-to-face than distance learners usedthe library (91% compared with 48%); IT facilities (80% compared with 51%); and cateringservices (70% compared with 47%).Figure 5.6:servicesPercentage of students who reported the frequency of use of the followingOnline resources(2615)103159Library (2591)213346NeverOccasionallyFrequentlyIT facilities (2566)274131Catering (2110)3343240% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Base: The base figures are reported in parentheses following the items. They include all students that reportthe item is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Student Survey 2006Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 67

5.5.1 Travel to and from university/collegeAll students surveyed, except distance, learners were asked how they normally travelled to theircourse and how long it took them to reach their institution (Table 5.2).Table 5.2:Travel to courseWork Home AllPer cent travelling from: 46 54 100Of which, per cent reporting timetravelledLess than ¼ of an hour 14 7 10¼ to ½ hour 29 19 24½ to 1 hour 43 36 391 hour to 1½ hours 11 24 181½ hours or more 3 14 9Base 1,909Base: All students except distance learners.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006• Slightly less students travelled to their place of study from work (46%) than from home (54%).However, students employed full-time were much more likely than those with part-time jobs totravel from work (58% compared with 27%), and especially men in full-time jobs rather thanwomen (63% compared with 52%).• Overall, students travelling from home had further to travel to their place of study than thosetravelling from work.• Half as many students travelling from home as those travelling from work had journeys of lessthan a quarter of an hour (7% compared with 14%) while nearly three times as many had ajourney of an hour or more (38% compared with 14%).5.6 ConclusionsAll the students surveyed were currently studying and so had overcome the initial barriers toaccess and participating in HE. However, the majority still faced other obstacles and difficulties thatprevented them participating fully in their course, particularly a lack of time and competingdemands, both at work (83%) and at home (77%). Most struggled juggling part-time study with theirother commitments (78%) and could not devote enough time to study (62%), despite havingsympathetic staff who recognised these pressures (62%). These issues were exacerbated byunrealistic expectations about the amount of time needed to devote to their course (71%) andinadequate time management and study skills (65%), suggesting both an information and skillsgap. However, unaffordable costs were also a barrier to full participation for nearly half thestudents, especially low incomes students (64%), lone parents (62%), and women (58%).Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 68

Most students surveyed were doing courses over 0.5 FTE, and most anticipated that their courseswould last between 3-5 years. Nearly three-quarters (72%) were taking courses delivered throughface-to-face contact. Students spent an average of 15 hours a week studying, mostly at home.However, the majority frequently used their HEI’s online resources and library facilities.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 69

6 The long view6.1 Course’s value for money and the returns of studyFigure 6.1: Percentage of students reporting they definitely or mostly agree with followingstatements about value for money and the returns of HECourse is good valuefor money (2583)73%Will benefit financiallyfrom course (2551)66%Will benefit socially fromcourse (2580)56%Would take out interestfree loan (2346)38%Support for part-timestudent is adequate(2205)22%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Base: The base figures are reported in parentheses following the items. They include all students that reportthe reason is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006• Just under three-quarters (73%) of all students believed that their course offered them goodvalue for their money, but one in five were undecided (Fig 6.1, Appendix 1 Table A6.1).• The proportion of students who felt their course was good value remained the same for thosestudents who paid all their tuition/course fees themselves but dropped to 64 per cent wheretheir employer paid for all their tuition/course fees. Students whose highest qualification beforethe start of their course was a postgraduate degree (86%) were the most likely to believe theircourse offered good value closely followed by students aged 50 and over (85%). Studentsdoing distance learning courses particularly thought their courses offered good value incontrast to those studying through face to face contact (81% compared with 70%).• The majority of students also felt that in the longer term they would benefit both socially andfinancially from having taken their course. In other words, most were optimistic about thepersonal and economic returns of HE and their course. HE was being seen as a worthwhileinvestment.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 70

• Nearly two thirds (66%) thought they would benefit financially from having taken their course,however, nearly one in five were unsure about whether they would benefit in this way (Fig 6.1,Appendix 1 Table A6.1).• The younger the student, the greater their belief in the financial benefits of study. For instance,nearly two and half times as many students aged under 29 as those aged 50+ believed theywould benefit financially (79% compared with 33%) – presumably because they projectedlonger periods in the labour market to reap the financial returns. Lone parents also wereparticularly positive (79%) while those doing a course not leading to a qualification were theleast likely to think they would benefit financially (36%).• In addition, 56 per cent of students thought they would benefit socially, however, a third wereuncertain. Again, lone parents were the most optimistic – two-thirds thought they would benefitsocially while those doing a course not leading to a qualification were the least likely to thinkthey would benefit (46%).6.2 DestinationsFigure 6.2: Percentage of students who reported what they hoped to do when they finishtheir courseContinue studying46%Change jobs38%Go for promotion33%Stay in current job21%Get a job9%No change envisaged5%Stop work / retire1%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Base: All students.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006• It is clear that students’ most popular aspiration on completing their current course was tocontinue their studies (46%) (Figure 6.2), especially those without a job (60%), those taking aqualification not leading to a qualification (60%), and doing 50-59 per cent of a full-time course(58%).• However, students were also using their course as a catalyst for change in their working liveswith 38 per cent wanting to change jobs, especially those from the intermediate social classes(50%), those with part-time jobs (46%), and those aged 30-39 years (46%). Another thirdPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 71

were intending to go for promotion, especially those taking courses between 60-74 per cent ofa full-time course (45%), in full-time jobs (42%), taking a vocational qualification (42%) andthose aged under 29 years (41%). Those least likely to see their course as a spring board forchanging their jobs were not in paid employment, and aged 50 and over.6.3 ConclusionsNearly three-quarters all students believed their course represented good value for money. Theyalso were convinced of the social and economic returns of HE and thought they would benefitfinancially (66%) and socially (56%) from their course in the longer term. With this worthwhileinvestment behind them, the most popular destination on course completion was further studyalthough a sizable minority wanted changes in their working lives.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 72

7 ReferencesCallender, C. and Kemp, M. (2001) Students in Wales: An analysis of data from the StudentIncome and Expenditure Survey 1998/9, Independent Investigation Group on Student Hardshipand Funding in Wales, Cardiff 23 ppCallender, C. and Kemp, M. (2000) Changing Student Finances: Income, Expenditure and theTake-up of Student Loans among Full and Part-time Higher Education Students in 1998/9, DfEEResearch Report RR213, Department of Education and Employment, London, 325 ppCallender, C. (1997) 'Full-time and Part-time Students in Higher Education: Experiences andExpectations' in Higher Education in the Learning Society, Committee of Inquiry into HigherEducation, Report 2, The Stationery Office, London p1-82DfES (2005a) Briefing note: part-time student support package 2006/07, DfES, LondonDfES (2005) Student Support: Part Time Students, DfES, LondonDfES (2005b) Big increase in targeted fee support keeps part-time undergraduate education opento all: Kelly, DfES Press Release, Oct 18http://www.dfes.gov.uk/studentsupport/students/news_48.shtmlDfES (2003a) The Future of Higher Education (White Paper). HMSO, Cm 5735 LondonDfES (2003b) Widening Participation in Higher Education. Department for Education and Skills,LondonFinch S, Jones A, Parfrement J, Cebulla A, Connor H, Hillage J, Pollard E, Tyler C, Hunt W, andLoukas G. Student Income and Expenditure Survey 2004/05,RR No 725, DfES, NottinghamHEFCE 2003 Survey of fees for postgraduate taught and part-time undergraduate students,HEFCE, BristolHouse of Commons Select Committee Report on the Future of Higher EducationFifth Report of Session 2002-03 HC 425-1Rees T (2005) Fair and Flexible Funding: A Welsh Model to Promote Quality and Access in HigherEducation; Final Report of an Independent Study into the Devolution of the Student SupportSystem and Tuition Fee Regime in Wales, Welsh Assembly Government, CardiffPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 73

Taylor, C (2006) Graham Review of Part-Time Study in Higher Education in Wales: Review of parttimestudents and part-time study in Wales from secondary data sources, Graham Review, WalesWoodley A (2004) Earning, Learning and Paying: the Results from a National Survey of the Costsof Financing of Part-time Students in Higher education, DfES Research Report RR600, NottinghamUnite (2006) The Student Experience Report 2006, Unite/Ipsos MORI. BristolPart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 74

8 Appendix 1 – TablesTable A2.1: Percentage of students who reported degree of importance of reason decidedto study part-timeReason decided to studyVeryFairlyNot veryNot at allBasepart-timeimportantimportantimportantimportantNCould not afford to give82 11 4 3 2,209up jobWanted to continue to64 20 11 5 2,075work full-timeHave domestic/caring45 24 18 13 1,680responsibilitiesAlready studied full-time 22 22 30 27 1,428Was more convenient 60 29 7 5 2,390Only doing course forinterest/fun16 30 28 27 1,515Base: All students that report the reason is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 75

Table A2.2: Percentage of students who reported degree of importance of reason decidedto do the courseReason decided to do theVeryFairlyNot veryNot at allBasecourseimportantimportantimportantimportantNTo help me get on in my53 19 15 12 2,222present job/careerTo help me change49 25 17 9 2,266job/careersTo get a job 29 24 26 21 1,728Interested in the subject 61 34 4 1 2,597Wanted a change of40 30 20 11 2,261direction in my lifeWanted to continue44 40 11 5 2,487studying/learningTo make up for missed41 28 17 14 2,193educational opportunitiesTo do something new/for17 36 29 18 2,117funTo gain a qualification 69 21 7 3 2,600To stretch me intellectually 55 36 7 2 2,600To meet new people 11 28 40 21 2,408To develop new/existingskills59 35 5 2 2,609Base: All students that report the reason is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 76

Table A2.3: Percentage of students who reported degree of importance of reason chosetheir institutionReason for choice of institutionVeryFairlyNot veryNot at allBaseimportantimportantimportantimportantNNear my place of work or46 33 12 9 1,836homeOffered the subject I wanted to74 22 3 1 2,562studyGood academic reputation 47 38 12 3 2,490Only university/college which16 14 33 38 832offered me a placeParticularly good for distance38 24 21 17 1,420learningThe course was at a60 29 7 4 2,338convenient time/fitted in withmy working hoursI liked what I saw at an open21 32 27 20 1,083dayPersonal recommendation 24 37 25 14 1,320Employer directed me 33 23 22 22 829Have previously studied here 31 23 21 25 814No entry qualifications13 22 29 36 1,298requiredThe course was cheaper than10 17 31 42 1,339other part-time coursesThere were no local part-timecourses30 25 22 24 1,447Base: All students that report the reason is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2006Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 77

Table A4.1: Attitudes to student support and costs of studyDefinitelyMostlyNeitherMostlyDefinitelyBaseagreeagreeagree ordisagreedisagreeNdisagreeWould take out interestfree loanFinancial support forpart-time student isadequate18 20 18 14 30 2,3468 14 32 21 26 2,205Base: All students that report item is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2005Table A5.1: Percentage reporting the extent of difficulty in participation in courseA lotTo someNot atBaseDifficultyextentallNLack of employer’s support 17 30 53 1,975You were too busy at work 32 51 17 2,253You were too busy at home 23 54 24 2,497The course was offered at an inconvenient time 6 18 76 2,202Cost was difficult to afford 10 36 55 2,044Coursework more difficult than expected 6 45 49 2,547Fell behind with my assignments 6 33 61 2,406Problems with time management/study skills 13 51 36 2,539Course more time consuming than expected 21 50 29 2,582Inadequate advice and support with my studies from10 26 64 2,459staffToo much coursework or too many assignments 8 33 59 2,528Base: All students that report the difficulty is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2005Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 78

Table A5.2: Other study constraintsDefinitelyMostlyNeitherMostlyDefinitelyBaseagreeagreeagree ordisagreedisagreeNdisagreeNot enoughtime to studyStruggle withstudy and othercommitmentsWorry aboutcosts of studyStaff recognisepressures22 40 21 13 3 2,62534 44 11 8 3 2,62416 24 25 16 19 2,11721 41 16 15 8 2,579Base: All students that report item is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2005Table A6.1: Attitudes the costs of study and the returns of HEDefinitelyMostlyNeitherMostlyDefinitelyBaseagreeagreeagree ordisagreedisagreeNdisagreeCourse is good value formoneyWill benefit financiallyfrom courseWill benefit socially fromcourse30 43 21 4 1 2,58333 33 21 7 6 2,55124 32 32 7 6 2,580Base: All students that report item is applicable to them.Source: London South Bank University – UK Part-time Student Survey 2005Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 79

9 Appendix 2 – Technical report9.1 SamplingThe survey was intended to cover a representative sample of part-time students currently studyingat a randomly selected 25 HEIs in the UK, who had Internet/email access.It was the responsibility of each HEI to email all their eligible part-time students, inviting them toparticipate in the survey online. GfK NOP provided a standard email invitation, which was sent outto each HEI. A definition of what constitutes an eligible part-time student was also given to eachHEI, to ensure consistent sample selection criteria across all HEIs.The following definition of a part-time student was therefore used:• Must be a UK national.• Must be currently studying on a credit bearing course.• Must NOT be a postgraduate.• Can be an undergraduate on a first degree (ordinary or honours), or an otherundergraduate, which – defined by HESA – includes qualification aims below degree levelsuch as foundation degrees, diplomas in HE with eligibility to register to practice with a healthor social care regulatory body, higher national diploma (HND), higher national certificate(HNC), diploma of higher education (DipHE), certificate of higher education (CertHE),foundation courses at HE level, NVQ/SVQ levels 4 and 5, post-degree diplomas andcertificates at undergraduate level, professional qualifications at undergraduate level, otherundergraduate diplomas and certificates including post registration health and social carecourses, other formal HE qualifications of less than degree standard, institutionalundergraduate credit and no formal undergraduate qualifications.This was a self-completion survey conducted via the Internet, and as well as relying on thestudents’ own interest to participate, we also had to account for the fact that not all eligible studentswere accessible via email. GfK NOP also had no prior knowledge of what proportion of those parttimestudents with access to the Internet actually used the email addresses supplied by their HEI –nor did the HEIs. Given the limited resources for this project, the HEIs did not have the opportunityof contacting those without email access by other means, such as post or telephone. Also,contacting non-respondents was not possible, as this would have created a large amount of extrawork for the HEIs, since GfK NOP was unable to contact students directly because of dataprotection issues.Being a self-completion survey, it is also important to recognise that responses are often biasedtowards those who show most interest – which are commonly those people who are particularlyunhappy or happy with a given situation (ie, in this case their part-time study). This bias thereforeneeds to be taken into consideration when analysing the findings.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 80

The invitation email explained the purpose of the survey, gave details of its sponsors, gavereassurances about confidentiality, and included the URL of the website where the questionnairewas hosted.9.2 The questionnaireThe questionnaire was designed by Professor Claire Callender, London South Bank University, inconsultation with GfK NOP. The questionnaire was designed to meet the particular objectives ofUniversities UK and the Independent Review of Part-time Higher Education Study.The average length of the questionnaire was around 20 minutes, somewhat longer than the 15minutes originally planned. The following topics were covered in the survey:• Basic course details.• Reasons for studying.• The costs of study.• Views about course.• Other information about course.• Demographics.The questionnaire script was written using “mrInterview”, an SPSS software program which is usedfor all of GfK NOP’s online interviewing work.To meet the requirements of Welsh HEIs, the questionnaire was also translated into Welsh,utilising the expertise of a professional Welsh translations agency, Prysg. Due to the very tighttimescales however, we had to launch the English-language version of the questionnaire first, withthe Welsh-language version following about one week later.9.3 PilotThe questionnaire was also piloted in order to refine the question wording and length.Approximately 150 students were contacted via their tutors at three institutions, University ofWestminster, University of Hertfordshire and London South Bank University. Although a £10incentive was offered to all students who took part in the pilot, only 12 interviews were achieved,whereas we had been hoping for at least 30, given the use of an incentive. This was partly due tothe length of the questionnaire, which at the pilot stage was typically taking half an hour or more tocomplete, but also possibly because timescales meant we were not able to allow enough time forstudents to access their emails.Our analysis of the pilot survey data also shows that in addition to the 12 students who fullycompleted an interview, there were another 42 people who logged into the online survey, of whichthe vast majority terminated the interview after only a couple of questions. However, for incompletePart-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 81

surveys the data is not able to inform us as to who were genuine student respondents and whichwere test interviews, for example completed by the project team.Nevertheless, the pilot did provide some useful feedback in terms of minor amendments to thequestionnaire, particularly for reducing its length.The pilot stage of the research was conducted between 31 October and 17 November 2005.9.4 FieldworkFollowing some questionnaire amendments the final online questionnaire was launched on 24November 2005.The cut-off date for survey completions from students was 15 January 2006. As is often the casewith self-completion surveys, respondents will either complete the survey as soon as they aremade aware of it or not do it at all. Given the low response rate, HEIs also sent students betweentwo and three reminders, to encourage participation amongst those who were either previously notinterested or had simply forgotten.A total of 2654 interviews were achieved, 2470 amongst students studying at an HEI and theremaining 184 at a further education college that was affiliated to an HEI.HEI’s informed GfK NOP of the number of emails they had sent out, but we have no means ofknowing how many of these were current addresses, or were email addresses that students everlooked at. For this reason any calculation of response rates based on these figures cannot bewholly reliable, and will certainly be an underestimate, but we cannot be sure by how much.Response rates for the survey varied significantly across the 25 participating HEIs, as detailed inTable A1. The response rates ranged from 23.5 per cent to 0.1 per cent. There was no obviouspattern to these response rates except they were above average at the two Scottish HEIs in thesample. Although the samples achieved at some institutions were extremely small (eg, twointerviews from City University and five from University of Portsmouth), given that these HEIs wereincluded in the original list of HEIs selected, we decided to keep them in the overall sample ofinterviews achieved, however, they inevitably bring down the average response rate.To help boost the response rate the length of time the survey was in the field was extended, andadditional reminders were sent out by the HEIs. It was not possible, however, to give a financialincentive mid-way through the fieldwork because of legislation affecting such incentives.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 82

Table A1: Response rates for HEIsInstitutionTotal Total number Number of Total number Responsenumber of of emails emails of completed rateemails sent successfully which interviewsto students delivered failedThe Open University 4895 4878 17 429 8.8%Birkbeck College 2706 2636 70 422 16.0%City University 2791 2785 6 2 0.1%The University of Hull 1553 1553 0 31 2.0%The University of Westminster 1978 1978 0 148 7.5%The Queen's University of3064 3064 0 140 4.6%BelfastLondon South Bank University 2891 2751 140 59 2.1%The University of Huddersfield 4364 4337 27 94 2.2%Bournemouth University 1922 1667 255 24 1.4%University of Manchester 930 930 0 18 1.9%The University of Lincoln 1958 19013457 11 0.6%The Manchester Metropolitan 2880 2880 0 92 3.2%UniversityUniversity of Ulster 7673 7673 0 77 1.0%The University of Bristol 142 142 0 15 10.6%The University of Leeds 1728 1708 20 42 2.5%The University of Paisley 761 701 60 154 22.0%University of the West of2465 2465 0 91 3.7%England, BristolThe University of Southampton 747 737 10 49 6.6%Glasgow Caledonian University 2249 218334 66 341 15.2%Liverpool John Moores2713 2689 24 128 4.8%UniversityThe University of Portsmouth 2515 2510 5 5 0.2%University of Derby 2302 2061 241 191 9.3%University of Glamorgan 2344 1553 791 22 1.4%University of Wales,226 200 26 47 23.5%AberystwythThe University of Wales,Lampeter198 198 0 22 11.1%TOTAL 57995 56180 1815 2654 4.7%34 The number of successful emails was not known for University of Lincoln or Glasgow CaledonianUniversity, so the average email failure rate (2.92%) was applied in order to estimate the response rate.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 83

Data AnalysisFollowing the completion of interviewing, data processing was undertaken to produce an SPSSdataset for LSBU and PSI. Due to resource limitations, a GfK NOP Approved Supplier, Cobalt Sky,was employed to undertake this data analysis.The vast majority of the data consisted of closed questions. However occupation of chief incomeearner was recorded through an open-ended question. Verbatim responses were thenautomatically coded to four-digit SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) using the CASCOTsoftware developed by University of Warwick for coding verbatim responses to a SOCclassification. In this case CASCOT was used in fully automated mode, with no coder intervention.NS-SEC classification was also included through the inclusion of a set of closed questions whichenables ‘self-classification’ at the data analysis stage.9.6 Weighting the dataSince we had no control over who responded to the survey, it was anticipated that the data mightrequire corrective weighting, particularly in terms of the proportion of interviews achieved at eachHEI. Survey data was compared against HESA data 35 on part-time students for this purpose.We therefore compared the following variables for HESA and survey data:• Open University versus non-Open University students.• Gender.• Age.• Qualification aim (first degree vs all other qualification aims).• Subject studied.Table A2 illustrates the notable differences between unweighted survey data, and HESA data.35HESA data for all UK domiciled part-time undergraduate student enrolments, 2004/05Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 84

Table A2: Comparison between HESA and survey data for all part-time students who arestudying for a qualificationHESAFirst Survey: firstdegree degreeHESA-OthercourseSurvey -othercourse/DK/None HESA-sumSurvey:sumSubject studied - all part timeMedicine & dentistry 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1%Subjects allied to medicine 17% 8% 20% 10% 19% 8%Biological sciences 8% 4% 2% 2% 4% 3%Veterinary science 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%Agriculture & related subjects 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Physical sciences 4% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3%Mathematical sciences 2% 9% 0% 13% 1% 10%Computer science 7% 0% 5% 0% 6% 0%Engineering & technology 5% 7% 3% 4% 4% 7%Architecture, building & planning 3% 6% 1% 5% 2% 6%Social studies 10% 14% 8% 12% 8% 14%Law 5% 7% 1% 3% 2% 6%Business & administrative studies 7% 12% 8% 19% 8% 13%Mass communications and documentatio 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Languages 4% 7% 8% 3% 6% 6%Historical and philosophical studies 7% 6% 5% 2% 5% 5%Creative arts & design 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2%Education 4% 3% 13% 14% 10% 5%Combined 16% 12% 22% 9% 20% 11%All 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Gender - all part timeFemale. 61% 60% 59% 65% 65% 61%Male. 39% 40% 33% 35% 35% 39%All 100% 100% 91% 100% 100% 100%Age - all part timeLess than 18 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%18 to 29 35% 33% 25% 28% 29% 32%30 to 49 54% 56% 51% 58% 52% 56%50+ 11% 11% 20% 14% 17% 11%Age unknown/reduced return 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0%All 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Table A2 thus shows that gender and age were broadly similar between the survey data and HESAdata, whereas there were wide differences in terms of subject studied (eg only 8% of surveystudents were studying subjects allied to Medicine, compared with 19% of all part-time students).In terms of qualification aim, the survey also included a disproportionately high number of studentsstudying for a first degree, as table A3 demonstrates:Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 85

Table A3: Qualification aim – comparison between HESA and survey data for all part-timestudents studying for a qualificationHESA dataSurvey dataFirst degree 34% 77%Other qualification/DK 66% 23%As the characteristics of distance-learners are different to other students, we ran some tests on thedata, by weighting the data to correct the proportion of Open University (OU) to non-OU students.However, afterwards there were still wide differences in terms of subject studied, between surveydata for students and the HESA data for part-time students overall: for example, just 8% ofstudents interviewed were studying subjects allied to Medicine, compared to 19% overall. However,12% of surveyed students were studying Mathematical sciences, compared with 1% overall.We also tested the impact of weighting the data by subject studied within each of the twocategories, OU versus non-OU students. The impact of these weights was to increase theproportion of students in the 30-49 age group, but this was not significant. The proportion of womenalso increased by 8%, which is likely to be a direct consequence of weighting on subject, whichhave different proportions of men and women in each.Overall, although the survey data was not representative in terms of qualification aim (and as aconsequence also subject studied), in order to correct these biases the corrective weights requiredwould have been too large, thus further affecting the reliability of the data.It is not possible to determine exactly what is causing these variances in the data, but based on theanalysis above, we concluded that it was safer to not weight the data, rather than weight data usingpotentially incorrect assumptions.Therefore the final dataset is not necessarily representative of all UK domiciled part-time students.This should therefore be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 86

About Universities UKThis publication has been produced byUniversities UK, which is the representativebody for the executive heads of UK universitiesand is recognised as the umbrella group for theuniversity sector. It works to advance theinterests of universities and to spread goodpractice throughout the higher educationsector.Universities UKWoburn House, 20 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HQTel +44 (0)20 7419 4111 Fax +44 (0)20 7388 8649Email info@UniversitiesUK.ac.uk Web www.UniversitiesUK.ac.uk© Universities UKISBN 1 84036 143 3November 2006