Guest blog: ‘If you were an engineer, what would you do?’

By Dr Susan Scurlock MBE – CEO of Primary Engineer

If you are one of the 125,000+ passengers per day heading through Gatwick South this summer, you may just spot your university’s Leaders Award prototype on the huge hoarding showcase.

Thanks to 49,000 school children aged between 3 and 19, 33 regional funders, three new national funders – Facebook, Network Rail and Gatwick Airport – and 19 university supporters (not forgetting the EPC’s support!) Primary Engineer is delighted to announce its ‘Wall of Fame 19’.

Gatwick Airport has today (August 13th) launched a three-week long exhibition of winners of the Primary Engineer Leaders Award ‘If you were an engineer, what would you do?’. The intention is to profile the university-builds from this and previous years and ask for a popular vote from the £2.6 million+ passengers walking through the terminal during the 3-week exhibition at the busiest time of year.

‘Wall of Fame 19’ showcases 11 inspirational prototypes of inventions designed by pupils from across the country and built by engineering students and technicians from universities in every UK region. Three working prototypes will be displayed – the Bicycle Sucker (built by Kingston University), the SMA Jacket (built by UCLan) and the Flat Pack Wind Turbine (built by Glasgow Caledonian University).

The Primary Engineer Leaders Award – “If you were an engineer, what would you do?” – links both primary and secondary schools with engineering professionals from across the sectors.  The competition promotes engineering to young people, with a 50/50 gender split for entries, and allows them to find the ‘engineer within’ by designing solutions to problems they have identified.

Primary Engineer is a not for profit educational organisation. Its approach brings engineering and engineers into primary and secondary classrooms and curricula; inspiring children, pupils and teachers through continued professional development, whole class projects, and the competition.

Dr. Susan Scurlock, MBE, founder of Primary Engineer said: “This exhibition at one of the most important travel hubs in the UK is testament to the commitment of commercial organisations, schools and universities who are all doing their bit to help pupils tap into their inner engineer. Each year I am astounded by the designs by pupils, some as young as 3, as they identify problems to solve which are important to them and in turn inspire engineers to build their solutions. We started by asking engineers to inspire children and have found that children inspire engineers. Perfect!” 

You don’t need to be passing through Gatwick to vote. The voting page is available at www.leadersaward.com/walloffame19/ and will feature each drawing, and photograph of each invention from this year and, in a separate section an opportunity to vote for previous years’ builds – we are looking to identify 2 winning builds. Please do vote and tweet “I have voted for my favourite design #walloffame19 @leadersaward!”.

New! DATA BLOG: Grade inflation?

Earlier this month, the OfS published a new release of degree classification data, concluding that the growing proportion of the first and upper second class degrees awarded cannot be fully explained by factors linked with degree attainment. Specifically, the new analysis finds that in 2017-18, 13.9 percentage points’ worth of first-class degree attainment is unexplained by changes in the graduate population since 2010-11, an increase of 2.4 percentage points from the unexplained attainment in 2016-17. So we have it – grade inflation.

So, we’ve fished some unfiltered HESA data out of our archives, updated it, and looked at the distributions between first, second and third-class honours in engineering. And it seems that engineering paints a very different (worse?) picture than the sector as a whole. We award a notably higher proportion of firsts and, at a glance, a commensurately lower proportion of 2nd class honours. The proportion of 3rd class honours/pass awarded has come into line with the all subjects over recent years. It varies by engineering discipline, but nowhere is the proportion of firsts lower than for all subjects.

You might think, then, that high-level degree awards in engineering (firsts plus upper-class seconds) were nothing to write home about. But in 2016/17, at 77.3%, the proportion of high-level degree awards in engineering was one percentage point higher than for all subjects (and the difference has fluctuated around the one percent mark for the past ten years).

A simplified index plot, where 1 (the central y axis) represents all subjects, shows the propensity of a first in engineering is consistently greater than for all subjects (where the longer the bar, the greater the over-representation). The over-representation of firsts in engineering has shown a notable reduction over the past ten years and, at 1.4, was at its lowest yet in 2017/18. The overrepresentation of third-class honours in engineering visible from 2007/08 to 2015/15 has now been eliminated. You can see from this analysis that the over-representation of firsts is in fact greater than the combined under-representation of 2:1s and 2:2s.

So, what does this tell us? That the rise in higher degree classifications doesn’t apply to engineering? The number of high-level degrees in engineering has increased from 10,180 in 2007/8 to 18,690 in 2017/8, an increase of 83.6%. Proportionally, this has risen from 62.7% of all degree awards in engineering to 77.3%. That’s just marginally less proportional growth than the 14.9 percentage point difference for all subjects. But we are making progress.

Here’s the rub, who’s to say that rises in high-level degree classifications (which, sector-wide, cannot be explained by the data readily available – not my data) is necessarily a problem per se, or that is signals grade inflation? There are many reasons – not accounted for in the OfS statistical models – for degree outcome uplift, not least the massive expansion of student numbers in the last 20 years (leading to a less socially constrained pool of students); greater awareness of student support needs; the increased cost of higher education to students; more incentivised and focused students; and improved teaching in both schools and universities. Further, there is evidence that market forces; course enrolments; progression rules (e.g. progression from BEng to MEng requires achievement of marks for the first two or three years of study suggesting a minimum 2:1 standard, and therefore likely transfer of the best students away from the BEng); and the marking processes adopted by different subject areas impacts the proportion of upper degrees between subjects.

The evidence of improvement in teaching (and the development of pedagogy in UK universities) is much stronger than the evidence for grade inflation. As a discipline, this is what we must celebrate. Higher education (HE) is the gold standard in the delivery of engineering skills in the UK and has a strong international standing and reputation.

Let’s face it, the assumption that institutions need to account for grade inflation rather than educational improvement is perverse. Instead, let’s talk about and encourage innovation in teaching, learning and assessment, precisely what our New Approaches to Engineering Higher Education initiative (in partnership with the IET) aims to do. Earlier this year we launched six case study examples for each of the six new approaches, evidencing that the required changes can be achieved – are already being achieved – and we now want other institutions who have been inspired to come up with new approaches of their own to showcase their work at a New Approaches conference at the IET in November. More details will be circulated shortly.

Attribution: EPC analysis of HESA Student Qualifiers Full Person Equivalent (FPE) using Heidi Plus Online Analytics service.

Guest blog: Compensation and condonement – incoming rules for accredited degrees

By Catherine Elliott, Engineering Council

The Engineering Council has updated its policy on compensation and condonement[1], which has resulted in new rules being put in place. The key consideration in these rules is to ensure that graduates of accredited engineering degree programmes have met all the learning outcomes specified in the Engineering Council’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP).

When making decisions about the potential accreditation of a university programme, Professional Engineering Institutions (PEIs) are required to consider the awarding institution’s compensation and condonement policy as part of the assessment.

These rules have been published on the Engineering Council website, with guidance on these changes expected in the coming months, which will provide additional information to enable Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to prepare.

The anticipated timeline to implement these changes is outlined below:

  • The rules should be implemented for new cohorts starting from September 2022.  The rules will only apply to intakes from that date and not to existing students. 
  • From September 2019, HEIs will be required to create a plan ensuring their regulations conform to the new rules by September 2022. Programmes reviewed on visits from September 2022 will not be accredited if the HEI regulations are not up to date with the rules on compensation and condonement.
  • From September 2022, PEIs will check all HEIs have complied as part of their regular visit schedule.

If you have any queries on compensation and condonement, please contact the Engineering Council at accreditation@engc.org.uk


[1] There are no consistent definitions of the terms ‘compensation’ and ‘condonement’ across UK universities, and they are often confused. The Engineering Council therefore adopts a similar definition to that used by QAA and HEA, as follows:

The Engineering Council defines compensation as: “The practice of allowing marginal failure (i.e. not more than 10 percentage points below the nominal pass mark) of one or more modules and awarding credit for them, often on the basis of good overall academic performance.”

The Engineering Council defines condonement as: “The practice of allowing students to fail and not receive credit for one or more modules within a degree programme, yet still qualify for the award of the degree.”

EPC Elections 2019

NOMINATIONS FOR ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF THE ENGINEERING PROFESSORS’ COUNCIL

Honorary Treasurer, Secretary and four elected Ordinary Board Members

On the occasion of the AGM, the period of office of the Honorary Treasurer, Professor Jim Yip, and of the Secretary, Professor David Harrison, will both come to an end. That will result in vacancies for both posts for a term of office of two years from May 2019 until the EPC Annual General Meeting in 2021. Four elected positions for members of the EPC Board shall also fall vacant.

Elections (if required) shall be held during the 25th Annual General Meeting of the Engineering Professors’ Council on 14th May 2019, which will be held during the EPC Annual Congress 2019 at UCL.

Any Individual Member of the EPC wishing to stand for this position should indicate their intention using this form. Nominations must reach Johnny Rich, Chief Executive, at j.rich@epc.ac.uk no later than 09.00 on Wednesday 8th May 2019. Johnny is happy to discuss the role impartially and in confidence. You can contact him at the same email or on 078 1111 4292.

Candidates should be nominated a Council Member (an individual nominated by an Institutional Member as one of its representatives) and seconded by another Council Member by the deadline specified in the Notice of the Annual General Meeting using the nomination form.

This completed form will be circulated to those attending the AGM at which, in the event of more than one candidate, each Council Member will be invited to vote for their chosen candidate (by secret ballot). The candidate with the highest number of votes is elected. In the event of a tie, the President shall have the casting vote. 

Only individuals from Institutional Members (i.e. universities) that have paid their subscription for the current academic year, by at least two weeks before the AGM, are eligible to stand for election and/or vote at the AGM.

Bid to host EPC Congress in 2020 or 2021

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS: 19th June 2019

Proposals are invited from higher education Engineering departments to host the Engineering Professors’ Council Annual Congress in 2020 or 2021.

‘Hosting the 2018 Engineering Professors’ Council Congress was a great way to showcase the University’s work to a wide range of experts in the field as well as to the professional bodies in engineering.  Our staff and students gained a lot from explaining their approach to engineering education and research, and we were also able to explore new collaborations to broaden the reach of our engineering activities.  We were delighted to welcome the EPC to Harper Adams and hope that other universities taking the opportunity act as the venue for the Congress will gain as much from the experience as we have.’
David Llewellyn, Vice-Chancellor, Harper Adams University (hosts of the 2018 Annual Congress) 

The Annual Congress is the flagship event in the EPC calendar, an opportunity for engineering academics from across the UK to come together to explore policy and practice and to network.

Download guidelines.

Download the form for submitting a proposal.

Each year, Congress is hosted by a different institution: 

The Congress usually takes place in April or May and lasts two days with a reception on the evening before the Congress formally starts.

  • 2016: The University of Hull hosted Congress as a prestigious addition to its preparations as European City of Culture. 
  • 2017: Coventry University hosted taking the opportunity to demonstrate the city’s close associated with transport engineering and manufacturing. 
  • 2018: Harper Adams University displayed its cutting edge status as a leading centre of agricultural engineering including automated farming and a range of off-road vehicles. 
  • 2019: UCL is host for this year’s congress where its proximity to the seat of Government has allowed an amazing line-up of high-profile speakers on a range of policy issues at a time of historic challenges. 

The host institution nominates a Congress Convenor who will become a member of the EPC Board for up to three years (2019-21 for the 2020 Convenor; 2020-22 for the 2021 Convenor) and who, with guidance from the EPC executive team, will lead the organisation of the Congress, including determining the themes and scope for the Congress, and the speakers and events. 

We are inviting bids to act as host for either of the next two years. You can specify one year or the other or apply without choosing a year. We will not select the same host for both years.

Download guidelines.

Download the form for submitting a proposal.


To submit a proposal, complete the form here and email it to Johnny Rich, Chief Executive, at j.rich@epc.ac.ukby 19thJune 2019. Johnny can also be contacted at the same address or by phone on 078-1111 4292 to discuss any aspect of Congress or the proposal process. 


What is expected from the host

The host institution (host) would be expected to provide:

  • an academic of suitable standing to act as Convenor and other staff resource as necessary to assist planning the Congress;
  • suitable function rooms such as a lecture theatre and smaller break-out rooms, as well as space for networking;
  • catering for the Congress;
  • possibly accommodation, particularly, for early career staff delegates to the Congress who may be provided free accommodation in student residences;
  • management of the Congress during the event;
  • financial accountability in accordance with the financial arrangements (see below).

There will be some support from the EPC executive, but it is advisable to ensure that the host can provide conference support staff as the smooth running of the Congress will primarily be the Convenor’s responsibility.

The Congress usually attracts up to 100 delegates, but the numbers have grown in recent years and the host should be able to provide for 150.


Selection process

The process for selection as host involves submission of your proposal to the EPC Board, which will conduct a vote. The basis for its decision is entirely at its discretion, but they will take into account issues such as the nominated Convenor, the suitability of the facilities, the arrangements for costs, the geographical suitability (although the EPC is keen not always to be restricted to big centres of population), the suggested activities such as Congress Dinner venue and other attractions, and other arrangements to ensure the smooth running of the Congress.

The host institution must be a member of the EPC. We would particularly welcome joint proposals from separate institutions to host jointly, such as two engineering departments at separate universities in the same city.


Financial arrangements

The suggestion for the financial arrangement between the EPC and the host forms part of the proposal. The EPC will seek to minimise its risk and, if possible, would like to generate a surplus from the event to contribute to its own in-house costs in running the Congress. However, the quality of the event and its appeal to members will be of greater weight in selecting the host institution.

That said, it may be helpful to provide as guidance the following arrangement that has been used in the past. The EPC would hope that the host would aim to meet at least this arrangement:

Costs may be divided into three categories as follows:

  • ‘External costs’: ie. costs that will genuinely have to be met, such as catering, external venue hire, student ambassadors, etc. The EPC would guarantee all these external costs and, if necessary, would pay them up-front. In any case, the EPC would be liable for these costs.
  • ‘Internal costs’: such as staff who are already employed by the host. The host would guarantee these costs and, in the event that registration income was insufficient to meet them, the host would be liable for them.
  • ‘Internal fees’: where the only cost to the host is a notional price that it sets internally – room hire, for instance. Once the two types of costs above have been met from revenue, 75% of any remainder may be used to defray the host’s internal fees and the other 25% will be due to the EPC to defray our internal costs and fees. After the host’s internal fees have been met, any surplus would be split equally.

The proposal should make it clear whether the host proposes to manages the bookings process and receive the registration fees or would prefer this to be handled by the EPC. If the host receives the fees, after the Congress it will be expected to provide a full account of income and expenditure (outlining the categories of expense as above, if that model is used). If the EPC receives the fees, the host may invoice the EPC for costs in accordance with the agreement. In either case, the host will be expected to agree with the EPC a full budget for the Congress at the earliest opportunity (and before substantial Congress planning) and would not be entitled to incur costs on behalf of the EPC outside the agreed budget without separate agreement.

While the host will be responsible for setting the registration fees and packages for delegates, these must be agreed in advance with the EPC. These should not include a more than 10% increase on equivalent packages for the previous year. A significant number of places for early careers staff (not more than 5 years in an academic post) should be made available at the lowest possible rate (including, ideally, some complimentary places).

In some years, the host has acted as a major sponsor of the event contributing to the costs or not passing on some or all of the costs it incurs. Any such support would be acknowledged and the EPC will seek to support the host’s objectives in sponsoring Congress. Any other sponsorship revenue will normally be retained by the EPC or used to offset the costs of running the Congress.

EPC Congress 2019 Bookings

Please read the information below to help you select the correct ticket type.

All tickets include:

  • Monday evening social
  • All sessions and events on Tuesday
  • Congress dinner at Senate House on Tuesday evening
  • Congress programme on Wednesday (ending at 2.00pm).

Accommodation is NOT included. A list of options to suit different budgets is available here.

Early bird booking rates – giving you £50 off the full congress package (or £30 for the already heavily discounted early career staff rate) – end 8th April.

TICKET TYPES

Full Congress: EPC member

Most UK universities with an engineering department or faculty are members of the EPC. To check whether your institution is a member, please click herePartner organisations may also attend Congress at member rates. This is a discounted rate.

Full Congress: EPC non-member

Most UK universities with an engineering department or faculty are members of the EPC. To check whether your institution is a member, please click herePartner organisations may also attend Congress at member rates. If you are not a member, you are still very welcome. Please select this rate.

Full Congress: Early career staff

Any academic staff at EPC member institutions who have been employed in academic roles for no more than five years qualify for this rate. Additionally, there are 10 free spaces available for ECS, a maximum of one free space per university. Apply for your free space here.

Engineering higher education faces multiple threats, according to new landmark report

A worrying convergence of challenges, outlined in a high-profile report published today, is threatening the vital role of higher education in supporting the UK’s engineering sector, a critical part of the country’s economy.

Led by the Royal Academy of Engineering and with significant input from the Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC), Engineering Skills for the Future – the 2013 Perkins review revisited has found key barriers for addressing the annual shortfall of 59,000 engineers and technicians in the UK workforce.

In the context of higher education, the post-18 education funding review, falling research revenues and international student numbers after Brexit, proposals in the Immigration White Paper, and the challenge to diversify the intake of students are all cited as issues that could undermine the supply of essential engineering graduates into the UK labour market.

The report highlights how the whole education system cannot produce enough engineers to support the UK economy, especially with increasing reliance on home-grown talent post-Brexit.

The report, produced by Education for Engineering, an engineering education and skills policy body, makes a raft of recommendations for government including relaxing the rules on how the Apprenticeship Levy may be spent, addressing the shortage of skilled teachers, and ensuring engineering higher education is well resourced and attractive to applicants in the event of changes to student funding.

The 2013 Review of Engineering Skills by Professor John Perkins FREng, commissioned by government, was a landmark report, the first to review engineering education from primary schools to professions. Engineering Skills for the Future – the 2013 Perkins review revisited is an independent report from the engineering profession.  It revisits the challenges highlighted in the original Perkins Review, and sets out a roadmap for government and the engineering community that identifies urgent priorities for action. 

The report specifically recommends that the UK must remain part of international partnerships to continue to attract students from the EU and all over the world and should extend opportunities for graduates to stay and work in the country after their studies. It also emphasises the need for top-up grants for engineering courses in the event of any cuts to tuition fees.

Also relevant to higher education, is the report’s call for an urgent review of post-16 academic education pathways for England. Young people should have the opportunity to study mathematics, science and technology subjects along with arts and humanities up to the age of 18. The report recommends this to encourage more students from a broader range of backgrounds into further and higher engineering education. The current system runs the risk of narrowing education choices and potentially closing the door to technical and creative careers.

Professor John Perkins CBE, Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, who led this report, said:

“Engineering is enormously valuable to the UK economy but suffers from a chronic shortage of skills, let down by the leaking pipes of the education system that removes the option of an engineering career for too many young people at every stage of their education. There has been scant progress in addressing the UK’s engineering skills gap since I first reviewed the education system five years ago, but the government’s Year of Engineering campaign in 2018 has shown what can be achieved with concerted and coordinated action. As a profession, we must now continue to raise the profile of engineering nationally and leverage this to galvanise change for the better.

“We need to broaden the curriculum for post-16 education, value technical education on a par with academic progression, unlock more potential from the Apprenticeship Levy, and guarantee affordable, fair and inclusive access to engineering degrees. These changes have the potential to pay dividends in the years to come for young people, the economy, and society.”

Professor Sarah Spurgeon OBE, President of the Engineering Professors’ Council, said:

“We wholeheartedly welcome this report and are proud to have contributed to its findings. The chain that links the development of tomorrow’s engineers through schools, colleges, universities and into the workplace is broken. This is not just a problem for UK engineering, but for the whole economy. Engineering is at the heart of the Industrial Strategy and Brexit will bring huge challenges in terms of skills shortages.

“As the seedbeds of innovation, our university engineering departments have been particularly successful in attracting talent from all over the world. International students make up 40% of our students and they contribute hugely to our education system and businesses in so many ways.” 

DATA BLOG: First glimpse HESA student data for 2017/18 highlights a decline in part-time, postgraduate, and male enrolments

First glimpse official 2017/8 HESA student data appears static in the Engineering and technology subject group (https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/17-01-2019/sb252-higher-education-student-statistics/subjects).

A closer look at the absolute numbers shows a nominal one-year fall in Engineering and technology enrolments – against small increases overall and in all Science subject areas.

But this unremarkable picture belies some underlying Engineering and technology subject group trends that warrant a closer look once the fuller picture is published by HESA at the end of January:

  • There was an overall increase in full-time enrolments. 1,105 (1%) more full-time Engineering and technology enrolments in 2017/8 were masked by a part-time slump (-1,285, 4%). This reversal was almost exclusively not first year enrolments; are part-time returners switching to full-time study?
  • There was a small increase in (full-time) undergraduate enrolments. Undergraduate Engineering and technology enrolments were up slightly overall (+ 485) but a similar reduction in part time enrolments (-495) masked a small, 1%, increase (+980) in full-time undergraduate numbers.
  • But there was a drop in the number of full-time undergraduate first years. Down by 2% (-655).
  • There was an increase in first year full-time postgraduate enrolments. These increased by 4% (+660).
  • But a drop in postgraduate enrolments overall. Also down by 2% (-665). Education was the only other subject to see an absolute fall in postgraduate numbers.
  • This was largely owing to a drop in post-graduate re-enrolments. Postgraduate enrolments which were not first year declined by 1045 in 2017/8.
  • The gender gap is closing. Female enrolments in Engineering and technology have increased by 17.5% since 2013/4 compared to a 1.1% increase in males. In absolute numbers, female enrolments have increased 3 times more than male enrolments (+4470 and +1465, respectively). In 2016/7, the number of male Engineering and technology enrolments decreased.
  • First degree is the only level of study where enrolments are increasing over time.
  • The profile of Engineering and technology enrolments to Welsh providers appears to be changing. In 2013/4, around a quarter of all Wales institutions enrolments were other undergraduate. This proportion has dropped each year to 15.5% in 2017/8. Part-timer enrolments to Wales have fallen correspondingly, from approximately 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 in the same period.

A more granular level of student enrolment data will be available from HESA at the end of January.

DATA BLOG: EPC engineering enrolments survey results

Slider Powered by Pinwheel WordPress Slider Plugin.

EPC Engineering Enrolments Survey

Firstly, a huge thank you for your contributions which the Recruitment and Admissions Forum confirmed are highly valued by our members. You told us that the data is used in many ways, from enabling individual members and departments to understand their experience relative to the sector and their comparators, to evidence-based decision making on new courses to offer. The survey gives us all an early temperature check of the health of HE undergraduate and postgraduate engineering enrolments; our survey is the only place you can gain this insight, many months before enrolment data for 2018/19 is published by HESA.

This year we saw improved member engagement and data quality, plus an increased response rate from a greater number of universities resulting in better overall coverage across more discrete disciplines. We will continue to work to make your involvement as easy as possible.

Stable enrolments, changing distribution

  • The EU share of the undergraduate market contracted for non-Russell Group universities; while the Home share expanded.
  • Postgraduate courses saw a higher proportion of overseas enrolments; especially in the Russell Group which reported greatest volatility.
  • At undergraduate level, Non-Russell Group universities dominated the home market.
  • London universities reported a decline in engineering enrolments.
  • Mechanical engineering remains the sector headliner, but fares poorly when it comes to attracting women.
  • The most notable growth was reported in Biomedical engineering, with Product design, General engineering and Other also showing clear growth overall.
  • The most notable decline was in Mineral, metallurgy and materials engineering.
  • Software engineering may also be on the up, but for undergraduates was proportionally the singularly most EU dependent discipline.
  • A three-fold growth was reported in enrolments on degree apprenticeships. But where are the part-time enrolments?

Summary findings

Mechanical engineering remains the sector superstar, dominating our sample population (and official data shows undergraduate numbers have doubled in a decade); members also reported that the applicant field in this area remains strong.

Software engineering features more prominently in our survey than ever before. But interim UCAS undergraduate data doesn’t suggest an engineering surge, so if software engineering is really taking off, it may be at the expense of other disciplines. What’s more, at undergraduate level, software engineering is proportionally the singularly most EU dependent discipline in our sample (charts 1 and 2).

Both disciplines fared poorly when it comes to attracting women into engineering, between them they had the worse female:male ratios in our sample, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

Nor does the EU student sample support the cause, which is surprising given Europe’s track record in this space. But recruiting from further afield (other overseas) does, particularly if you’re in the Russell Group…and enrolling postgraduates! Biomedical engineering continues to have the best female:male ratio in our sample.

This year we celebrated huge gains in the coverage of our female:male data, which was almost complete for home undergraduate enrolments (chart 3).

The EU share of the undergraduate market has contracted in our survey for non-Russell Group universities, while the Home share has expanded. Could this be an early sign to the new direction as Brexit looms near?

Postgraduate engineering courses saw a much higher proportion of overseas enrolments, especially within the Russell Group. At undergraduate level, Non-Russell Group universities dominated the home market (chart 4).

There are huge regional variations, with the North and London attracting the most enrolments from overseas, particularly at postgraduate level (chart 5).

Our survey showed part-time undergraduate enrolments to be pitiful in numbers, mostly seen in Civil engineering. At postgraduate level, part-time study was far more common, with Civil engineering again leading the way.

Degree apprenticeships

We received submissions for 3.5 x more degree apprenticeship enrolments than last year (572), and these were returned by one quarter of our respondents (approximately half of these were in addition to the enrolment figures submitted elsewhere). Degree apprenticeship enrolments were reported in all disciplines excepting Biomedical engineering, Chemical, process and energy engineering and Product design. They were dominated by Mechanical, aero and production engineering and Civil engineering. Just 3% of these were at postgraduate level (chart 6).

Undergraduate enrolments compared with 2017-18

The most notable growth was reported in Biomedical engineering, with Product design, General engineering and Other also showing clear growth overall. The most notable decline was in Mineral, metallurgy and materials engineering. Among the other disciplines, there were mixed fortunes.

Following an apparent hit last year, Chemical, process and energy engineering witnessed greater growth than decline this year. Members report that attracting core Electronic and Electrical Engineering students continues to be challenging.

The levels of stability (the gaps between the lower and higher bars) were relatively uniform in the data, suggesting relative stability in the engineering undergraduate sector (chart 7).

At postgraduate level, growth outweighed decline across all disciplines except Civil engineering and Software engineering. The stand-out pattern is, similarly, the consistency of those reporting their enrolments to be about the same (chart 8).

Enrolments at universities across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland collectively showed a notable increase overall, together with those in the South and the North. At undergraduate level, universities in the Central region also showed much greater growth than decline. Across the board, universities based in London fared worse with both undergraduate and postgraduate enrolments reported as being most in decline relative to their growth (chart 9).

While non-Russell Group universities reported relatively stable enrolments overall, the Russell Group witnessed greater volatility, showing growth overall, most convincingly at postgraduate level (chart 10).

Reflections

Notwithstanding Brexit, we also know that some (non-EU) overseas markets are struggling. And, of course, we know that recruitment and selection are made in the context of institutional strategies and targets. Share your own reflections below…

In addition to the slides published here, a headlines slide deck is available to download for all EPC members.

Protected: Recruitment and admissions forum 2018 presentations

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: