Download pdf - 2019 Postgraduate - s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com€¦ · Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey 2019 Jonathan Neves and Jason Leman 8 3.3 Trends in taught postgraduate satisfaction The

2019PostgraduateTaughtExperience SurveyJonathan Neves and Jason Leman

POSTGRADUATE

TAUGHT EXPERIENCE

SURVEY

Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey 2019

Jonathan Neves and Jason Leman

2

Contents

1. Executive Summary 4

2. Methodology 5

2.1 Approach 5

2.2 Participation 6

2.3 Sector benchmark groups 6

3. The overall experience 6

3.1 Overall satisfaction 6

3.2 Postgraduate vs undergraduate comparison 7

3.3 Trends in taught postgraduate satisfaction 8

3.4 Lowest-scoring items over time 9

3.5 Benchmark group comparison 10

3.6 Overall satisfaction by subject 11

3.7 Opportunities to provide feedback on the experience 12

4. How could the experience be improved? 13

4.1 Correlation analysis 13

4.2 Areas for improvement – free text analysis 14

5. Retention 17

5.1 Likelihood to consider leaving 17

5.2 Reasons for considering leaving 17

6. Ethnicity 19

7. Time in paid work 21

8. Overseas students 23



3

9. Motivations towards study 24

9.1 Overall motivations towards study 24

9.2 Motivations by ethnicity 25

9.3 Other factors combined with ethnicity 26

10. Motivations towards institution 27

10.1 Motivations by ethnicity 28

10.2 Ethnicity and reputation of the institution 29

10.3 Ethnicity and location of the institution 30

10.4 How motivation links to satisfaction 32

11. Conclusions 34

12. Appendix 35

12.1 Participating institutions 35



4

1. Executive Summary

Overall satisfaction is high and has remained consistent over several years. The one

exception to this was in 2018, when a temporary dip in satisfaction appears to be related to

UCU (University and College Union) strike action. Despite the strong scores, satisfaction

levels remain slightly below those reported by undergraduates through the National Student

Survey (NSS).

In terms of specific aspects of the experience, institutions across the sector score

particularly highly for providing effective resources (eg library, IT, subject-specific) and

information, although organisation (logistics, guidance, communication) and assessment

(criteria and timeliness) continue to be rated least positively. Most aspects of the experience

score consistently above 70% or higher, but there are a handful of areas where scores are

relatively low. The main specific aspect that requires attention is how to provide

opportunities for postgraduate taught (PGT) students to be involved in decisions about how

their course operates, which scores consistently lower than all the other measures in the

survey.

In 2019, for the first time, we have conducted detailed analysis of the open comments,

specifically around suggestions for improvement. This analysis identified some key areas of

consistency with the quantitative analysis, building a clear picture of some areas to prioritise

across the sector. In particular, these included how teaching staff provide support and how

the course is organised.

A relatively small proportion, 20%, had considered leaving their PGT course to date, which

compares favourably with similar data collected at undergraduate and postgraduate

research (PGR) level – and is an endorsement of the levels of support provided across the

sector.

In terms of ethnicity, the results go against the stark White/BAME (Black, Asian and Minority

Ethnic) contrast that we have previously found at undergraduate level. Instead, there is a

more nuanced picture, with Black, Chinese and White students reporting strong satisfaction

levels, contrasted by evidence of a more disappointing experience for Asian and Mixed

students, as well as those of “Other” ethnicity. A particular challenge for investigating the

concerns of these cohorts lies in the fact that they are comprised of a range of different

subgroups, each of which may be facing their own particular issues.

There is a strong picture among overseas students, who tend to report a very positive

experience. One of the factors contributing to this is that overseas students tend to spend

little time working for pay. Our analysis shows that time spent working for pay can link



5

strongly to a greater likelihood of leaving the course, and hence the high levels of retention

among overseas students are likely to be strongly linked.

Motivations for choosing an institution can vary, but analysis highlights how the type of

motivation can be linked to the subsequent quality of the experience. Where students have

chosen an institution based on reputation (of tutors, course or institution) or content of

course, they tend to go on to be much more satisfied than those for whom the choice may

have been a more restricted one – eg based on the location of the institution of whether

there was funding available.

2. Methodology

2.1 Approach

The Advance HE Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey was first piloted in 2009 and

since then has become well established as the principal sector-wide barometer of the PGT

experience. The survey was redesigned in 2014 after extensive research and consultation

with the sector. Whilst the core survey is consistent, it continues to evolve, with the aim of

reflecting the key sector concerns of the PGT experience and accommodating student and

institutional diversity. Any student taking a course at masters level that is more than a single

module is eligible to take part.

PTES has been designed to provide key information to drive the enhancement of the PGT

experience within institutions and across the sector. HEIs (Higher Education institutions)

administer the survey through the Jisc Online Surveys platform, and own their results, which

they can choose to publish or not as they believe appropriate. To support the dissemination

of results, Advance HE provides institutions with a wide range of benchmarking dashboards

and tables comparing performance to both sector results and benchmark groups as

selected. These results are provided within six weeks of the close of the survey in order to

provide the maximum opportunity to disseminate and drive action-planning from the findings.

The survey window was open from 1 February to 14 June 2019. Institutions had the

flexibility to choose when to run the survey within this window, as long as the survey was

open for a minimum of three weeks.



6

2.2 Participation

71,043 students participated in PTES in 2019, across 85 institutions. This represented a

32% response rate. This response rate for a non-compulsory sector survey is very strong

and represents a positive increase from 29% in 2018.

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Institutions 81 82 89 100 100 108 104 106 85

PGT

students

38,756 54,640 58,679 67,580 72,200 82,707 84,556 85,880 71,043

2.3 Sector benchmark groups

In 2019, the following benchmark group comparison results were produced for participating

institutions:

3. The overall experience

3.1 Overall satisfaction

One of the key measures within PTES asks students about the extent to which they agree

with the statement “Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course”. This question

provides a simple barometer of student satisfaction and is a key starting point for looking at

overall satisfaction levels, trends over time, and demographic differences.

Sector Cathedrals Group Million Plus Small and Specialist Russell Group Pre-92 University Alliance Post-92 Guild HE

82% 83% 82% 80% 82%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Trends over time



7

Overall satisfaction is high and has remained remarkably consistent over time. Hence the

sector overall is doing a good job of meeting the needs of PGT students. In 2018 we saw a

decline, which our analysis at the time implied was likely (at least partly) to be related to the

UCU strike action over pension arrangements, which occurred in 2018 at a time when many

students would be completing the PTES survey. With this in mind it is encouraging, and also

logical that, in the absence of any major strike action in 2019, levels of satisfaction have

increased back up to their customary levels.

3.2 Postgraduate vs undergraduate comparison

To obtain a broader perspective of the postgraduate experience, we have made a direct

comparison to the undergraduate experience, using data from the National Student Survey

(NSS)1 which asks an identical overall satisfaction question using the same scale. This

comparison tells us that although both student cohorts are satisfied with their overall

experience, undergraduates have tended to reflect slightly higher satisfaction year on year

than taught postgraduate students, with both sets of data following very similar patterns over

time.

1 https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/student-information-and-data/national-student-survey-nss/ (Accessed 4 October 2019)

82% 83% 82%80%

82%

86% 86%84% 83% 84%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Overall satisfaction comparison

PTES NSS

https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/student-information-and-data/national-student-survey-nss/

https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/student-information-and-data/national-student-survey-nss/



8

3.3 Trends in taught postgraduate satisfaction

The wide range of aspects covered in PTES have been grouped together into eight key

categories which form the basis for reporting.

In 2018 we saw a downturn in perceptions around organisation and teaching, but this has

been reversed this year. Indeed, for all sections there is a more positive picture in 2019

compared to 2015. This is particularly striking in that it exceeds the trend in overall

satisfaction, where the 2019 scores remain on a par with the 2015 figures.

As we have seen for overall satisfaction, there have been improvements in several areas

compared to last year, which provides further evidence that the 2018 downturn can be linked

to strike action.

Institutions across the sector score particularly highly for providing effective resources (eg

library, IT, subject-specific) and information, while organisation (logistics, guidance,

communication) and assessment (criteria and timeliness) continue to be rated least

positively.

85%

79%

85%

74%

79%

75%

79%

83%

85%

78%

85%

73%

79%

74%

79%

82%

85%

78%

85%

74%

78%

74%

79%

82%

85%

78%

84%

74%

79%

73%

79%

82%

84%

77%

83%

73%

78%

72%

78%

82%

Information

Skills development

Resources

Organisation

Dissertation

Assessment

Engagement

Teaching

Key areas of the PGT experience

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019



9

3.4 Lowest-scoring items over time

Within the eight overall themes displayed above, there are 31 individual question items.

Hence looking at the scores at an overall level does not tell us the full picture of where a

particular aspect of the experience may be in need of improvement.

Most aspects of the experience score consistently above 70% or higher, but there are a

handful of areas where scores are relatively low. The main aspect that requires attention is

how to provide opportunities for PGT students to be involved in decisions about how their

course operates, which scores consistently lower than all the other measures in the survey.

There are also concerns around contact time (a common theme that is also well

documented at undergraduate level), prompt feedback and manageable workload, as well

as, to a lesser extent, support for dissertation planning.

What is encouraging when looking at the data, however, is that the scores across all these

aspects are moving in the right direction. Not only has the dip in 2018 been reversed (in the

case of being involved in decisions and contact time), but also scores in most cases are

slightly higher than they were in 2017. These scores are still relatively low but these

improvements do imply that specific efforts are being made across the sector to focus on

these aspects and help bring them into line with the rest of the PGT experience, and given

these enhancements we may realistically feel that an increase in the key measure of overall

satisfaction is feasible in future.

66%

70%

71%

71%

73%

63%

68%

69%

71%

72%

64%

69%

69%

71%

72%

Encouraged to be involved in decisions about howmy course is run (organisation)

There is sufficient contact time to support effectivelearning (teaching)

Feedback on my work has been prompt(assessment)

The workload on my course has been manageable(engagement)

Support received for planning my dissertation(dissertation)

Lowest-scoring items

2017 2018 2019



10

3.5 Benchmark group comparison

The common pattern among several, but not all, of the benchmark groups is one of declining

satisfaction in 2018 and an increase in 2019 back up to around 2017 levels. This mirrors the

overall sector trend, which as we discussed may be at least partly related to strike action in

2018.

However, there are some benchmark groups which go against this trend, suggesting there

are other issues influencing a change in perception.

Positively, the results across Guild HE institutions have increased strongly and consistently

since 2017 to the extent that the 2019 score of 84% is the strongest across all groups.

Against this however, there has been a stark decline in results for the Million+ group, which

is now the lowest-scoring benchmark.

All groups contain a range of different institutions, so without examining individual

institutional scores (which are confidential) we cannot particularly speculate publicly on the

reasons behind these trends, but this data does provide an opportunity for benchmark

groups to work together to identify any factors which may be common across their members

that may need addressing.

83%79% 81% 80% 82% 80% 81% 83%81% 82% 80%

77%82% 81% 80% 80%82% 81% 82% 82% 83% 84%

78%82%

Pre-92 CathedralsGroup

Post-92 Small andSpecialist

UniversitiesAlliance

Guild HE Million +Group

RussellGroup

Overall satisfaction

2017 2018 2019



11

3.6 Overall satisfaction by subject

There is a sizeable difference in satisfaction between the best-performing subject – History

and Philosophy – and the worst-performing subject – Computer Science, although most

subjects cluster around similar levels of satisfaction between 81% and 84%.

Unsurprisingly, given the increase in overall satisfaction, most subjects have increased

slightly between 2018 and 2019. There have been some significant changes however, with

Mass Communication and Social Studies in particular showing a strong increase. Of

particular concern based on this data is the stark decline seen for Veterinary Science.

Although the base size is relatively small (240 in 2019), this does suggest the need for all

institutions delivering this subject at PGT level to conduct further investigation to aim to

understand the macro as well as micro issues that may be behind this.

77%

79%

81%

81%

81%

81%

81%

81%

81%

82%

82%

82%

82%

83%

83%

84%

84%

84%

84%

85%

78%

79%

81%

77%

80%

82%

82%

89%

78%

81%

81%

80%

79%

84%

78%

78%

80%

81%

81%

82%

Computer Science

Architecture, Building, Planning

Geographical Studies

Creative Arts and Design

Engineering

Mathematical Sciences

Subjects allied to medicine

Veterinary Science

Biological Sciences

Business & Administration

Medicine & Dentistry

All Responses

Physical Sciences

Education

Social Studies

Mass Communication & Documentation

Law

Agriculture

Languages

History and Philosophical Studies

JACS subjects

2018

2019



12

3.7 Opportunities to provide feedback on the experience

PTES provides a key opportunity for PGT students to give feedback on their experience – in

the knowledge that they are contributing to a high-profile sector survey that is going to be

acted upon at institutional level. There are, of course, a range of other opportunities to

provide feedback within individual institutions, and with this in mind we wanted to highlight

here how PGT students feel about these opportunities.

The chart below compares opinions of feedback opportunities among PGT students with

those of Postgraduate Research (PGR) students as measured by the Postgraduate

Research Experience Survey (PRES).2

Note: PGT students were asked about feedback opportunities, PGR students were asked

about feedback being valued and acted upon.

Although we should take into account the differences in the question asked, it is still

reasonable to conclude that opinions of feedback opportunities at PGT level are more

positive than at PGR level (see more on PGR feedback in Advance HE’s PRES 2019

report). For PGT students this is a positive endorsement of the range of feedback

opportunities currently provided, both at national and institutional level.

2 Copyright Advance HE 2019

77% 77% 78%

62%60% 59%

2017 2018 2019

Feedback opportunities

PGT students (PTES) PGRs (PRES)



13

4. How could the experience be improved?

4.1 Correlation analysis

Correlation analysis enables us to identify the aspects of the postgraduate taught

experience covered by the survey which have the strongest connection with overall

satisfaction.

Top 10 correlations with

overall satisfaction

Theme Pearson

correlation

value

Strength of

correlation

with overall

satisfaction3

Overall

satisfaction

score

Support for learning

received from staff Teaching 0.687 Strong 76%

Course well organised and

running smoothly Organisation 0.679 Strong 74%

Course has enhanced my

academic ability Teaching 0.650 Strong 86%

Course is intellectually

stimulating Teaching 0.646 Strong 86%

Staff are good at

explaining things Teaching 0.635 Strong 88%

Course challenged me to

produce my best work Engagement 0.634 Strong 82%

Given appropriate

guidance and support

when started

Organisation 0.632 Strong 77%

The learning materials

provided on my course are

useful

Teaching 0.624 Strong 83%

Information provided for

prospective students was

accurate

Information 0.594 Strong 81%

Staff are enthusiastic

about what they are

teaching

Teaching 0.579 Strong 90%

A correlation of above 0.501 or higher is generally recognised as a strong correlation, meaning that the results of the two items in question are strongly linked.

3 Statistical definitions using Pearson’s correlation guidelines where 0.501+ is strong, 0.30 to 0.50 is moderate and 0.10 to 0.30 is weak. All correlations are significant at 99%.



14

As the table above illustrates, the two areas of the experience with the strongest links to

satisfaction are teaching (six items) and information (two items). In reality, aspects of the

teaching experience dominate the picture and hold the key to maximising the quality of the

experience. The right-hand side of the table highlights how each aspect is rated across the

sector, with those in green already scoring well and those in amber showing some room for

improvement.

Encouragingly, all the aspects of most importance for driving satisfaction score, at least,

reasonably well, which implies that efforts and resources across the sector are focusing on

the aspects that have the greatest impact.

What this table also shows us, however, is that the two principal key drivers (learning

support – 77% satisfied; course organisation – 74% satisfied) do show some room for

improvement, and hence there is an opportunity for institutions across the sector to focus

even greater attention on these areas in order to help improve the overall experience.

4.2 Areas for improvement – free text analysis

In 2019, opportunities for improving the PGT experience were explored through analysis of

Question 21, which asked about “the one thing that would most improve your experience of

your course”. This analysis was offered for the first time this year, as a pilot initiative with

institutions being given the opportunity to opt in or out.

Of the 71,043 PTES respondents, 20,404 comments were submitted for analysis by

institutions opting to take part in this initiative. These free text comments were then coded

and analysed,4 and grouped into eight predominant themes and further sub-themes, the

principal ones being shown in the table overleaf. This shows that the top three most

frequently cited suggestions for improvement were associated with:

Programme Design (and Organisation) (50%).

Programme Delivery (37%)

Learning and Project Support (34%)

The second and third-level themes are a subset of level one and provide further insights into

how students think improvements could be made. For example, 50% of all comments for

improvement were classified under the theme of programme design. 21% of the programme

design comments were related to scheduling and timetabling issues, and 48% of those

comments were about modules, coursework, essays and deadlines.

4 Free text comments were analysed and coded by QDAS (http://www.qdaservices.co.uk) using NVIVO software.

http://www.qdaservices.co.uk/



15

Although the correlation analysis and the free text comments are analysing different data

using diverse techniques, it is interesting to highlight the consistency in feedback. Course

organisation was the key driver from the correlation analysis (with a reasonable but not

especially high satisfaction score), and it is also identified in the free text comments, as

“scheduling and timetabling” – under Programme Design. The other main area of

commonality is in terms of support for learning. Again this is a key driver where there is

room for improvement in terms of satisfaction, and it also emerges as a key theme from the

free text analysis, as “supervisor & tutor support” – under Learning and Project Support.

Hence, addressing enhancement activities towards how teaching staff provide support and

how the course is organised is likely to pay dividends.



16

*Note: Top two second-level themes listed in each area. Full list of themes and analysis

available on request.

Suggestion for improving the PGT experience

FIRST-LEVEL THEMES % of comments received

SECOND-LEVEL THEMES* % of first-level theme

THIRD-LEVEL THEMES % of second-level theme

Programme Design (50%)

Scheduling, timetabling issues (21%) More practical content, applied learning (16%)

Modules, coursework, essays, deadlines (48%); Lectures, seminars, tutorials, timings and length (30%); General (13%); Exams (9%) -

Programme Delivery (37%)

Lectures and lecturer (30%) More contact time: lecture, seminars, tutorials, supervisory meetings (17%)

Lecturer: quality, engagement, preparation, delivery (51%); Study material: outdated, missing, available (37%); Guest, external lecturers (8%); Knowledgeable, experienced lecturer (4%) -

Learning and Project Support (34%)

Supervisor, tutor support (30%) Clearer guidance, expectations for assignment, exams, assessment criteria, marking scheme (15%)

Methods training (40%); Specific suggestions/general (23%); Writing (16%); Transferable skills. including presenting and communicating (14%); Programming (5%); Practical/ lab work (2%) -

Working with Colleagues (6%)

Connecting to others: students, staff, networking (31%) Student intake: language, diversity, experience (31%)

- -

Physical Infrastructure / Facilities (5%)

Facilities and resources, including rooms, studio space (51%) Library, books, journals (26%)

- -



17

5. Retention

5.1 Likelihood to consider leaving

After consultation, the retention question for PTES 2018 was changed to remove whether

the student was considering suspending their course and focus only on whether they had

considered leaving. This was kept consistent in 2019 but was supplemented with a question

to probe a little deeper as to the reasons behind this.

A relatively small proportion, 20%, had considered leaving their PGT course to date, with

almost certainly a much smaller percentage that actually had left (official data sources are

not available at sector level). For comparison, Advance HE includes similar questions in its

UKES and PRES surveys, which provide figures of 27% (UKES – undergraduates) and 26%

(PRES – PGR students) respectively. Accordingly, we can reasonably infer that PGT

students tend to face fewer major concerns – personal or professional – which may put

them at risk of non-continuation. This relatively positive result is also an endorsement of the

quality of support services provided.

5.2 Reasons for considering leaving

The chart below illustrates the predominant reasons that lead PGRs to consider leaving their

course. The main concern, by some distance, is difficulty balancing study and other

commitments. These commitments are likely to include spending time working for pay,

among other responsibilities, and hence any opportunity for HEIs to give greater support in

20%

75%

5%

Whether you considered leaving your course

Yes

No

Prefer not to say



18

terms of flexibility of learning and access to resources – virtually or physically – would be

likely to make a difference.

Among the other aspects mentioned, financial and health concerns were also prominent.

Again, these are aspects where HEIs can consider how best to support students, but are not

related to the content or delivery of the course itself.

The most prominent course-related aspect is a relatively general one related to matching

expectations – with 13% of those who considered leaving citing that the course was not

what they expected it to be like.

Conversely, the findings suggest there is a relatively good matching of PGT students to their

institution and course, with only 4% feeling they had chosen the wrong course, and just 3%

thinking that they had selected the wrong institution.

It is also worth pointing out that some of these potential risk areas are particularly difficult for

HEIs to impact directly through delivery – although there are a range of implications for

areas in which greater support could be provided.

3%

3%

4%

5%

5%

7%

13%

13%

14%

21%

Not enough support for personal issues

Might have chosen the wrong institution

Might have chosen the wrong course

Find this level of study too difficult

Too much work

Not enough support for my learning

Family, health or personal problems

Course not what I expected

Financial difficulties

Difficulty balancing study and other commitments

Reasons for considering leaving



19

6. Ethnicity The Advance HE–HEPI (Higher Education Policy Institute) 2019 Student Academic

Experience Survey (SAES),5 conducted among UK undergraduates, has consistently

highlighted how the experience of BAME students (in particular Asian and Chinese

students) on key issues such as value for money and learning gain consistently lags behind

that of White students.

To provide comparison with the undergraduate picture, we have conducted similar analysis

based on the PTES data. As with the SAES survey data, this analysis has been carried out

among UK domicile students only, in order to remove any impact of overseas students on

this ethnicity analysis.

The analysis below from PTES provides an interesting counterpoint to what is happening at

undergraduate level. White students report levels of satisfaction on or around the average,

but they are not the most satisfied cohort. Interestingly, the most satisfied students are those

from Chinese and Black backgrounds, which tells us that a clear White /BAME difference

does not necessarily apply in terms of satisfaction. At the other end of the scale, PGT

students from Asian, Mixed and Other backgrounds report relatively low satisfaction, and in

the case of Mixed students this is a lot lower than it was in 2017.

5 Neves, J. and Hillman, N. (2019). Student Academic Experience Survey. Advance HE and HEPI. p.29.

82% 81% 82%84% 83% 83%

80%

77%

80%

84% 83%85%84%

78%80%

74%

77% 77%

2017 2018 2019

Overall satisfaction by ethnicity –UK domicile

White Black Asian Chinese Mixed Other



20

The issues that drive lower satisfaction among these Asian, Mixed and Other cohorts are

likely to be particularly challenging to unpick, as these groups are in turn comprised of a

range of different subgroups. However, the wider classification data does enable us to delve

a little deeper.

2019 data Asian subgroups Mixed subgroups

Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other White &

Black

Caribbean

White

&

Black

African

White

and

Asian

Other

Base size 1,147 718 286 601 261 182 365 469

% Overall satisfaction

82 78 79 80 81 81 81 78

Based on this more detailed data we can identify that students from Pakistani and

Bangladeshi backgrounds are the least satisfied within the overall Asian cohort, and

students of “other mixed ethnicity” are the least satisfied in the Mixed cohort. Some of the

issues associated with lower satisfaction among Asian students at undergraduate level

appear to be related to a high proportion of students who live in the family home – and

therefore feel isolated from the campus environment. We do not have the same data in

PTES to analyse living arrangements, and we would reasonably expect that the propensity

to live at home during PGT studies is lower than for undergraduate studies. However, for

institutions wishing to investigate this further, gaining an understanding of living

arrangements and the challenges they bring would be a sensible issue to unpick.

Institutions also face a challenge around the relatively low levels of satisfaction within the

“Other” categories, which are by nature very varied. It is possible that the range of students

classifying themselves as “Other” each face a range of difficulties that are unique to them

and cannot easily be addressed as a cohort. However, in the first instance it would appear

helpful for HEIs to conduct further investigative work among these students to begin to

understand how they feel their experience can be improved.

One aspect that can impact on the experience of students of different ethnicities is the

relative diversity, or lack of diversity, across the rest of the student cohort. If students do not

feel they are represented, this can make it challenging to feel a sense of belonging. Within

the free text comments discussed earlier, one aspect that was particularly highlighted by

BAME students compared to White students was the relative diversity of the student intake

(identified in the full data as “Student intake: language, diversity, experience”) – suggesting

that this was one of the aspects that was impacting upon their experience. Addressing this

issue and enabling students from different ethnic backgrounds to feel represented when

they are in the minority is likely to be challenging, but these findings do provide a prompt for

further investigation into this.



21

7. Time in paid work We know from Advance HE’s survey work at undergraduate level – through the UK

Engagement Survey and the Student Academic Experience Survey – that a sizeable

proportion of students spend time in paid work and that this can impact negatively on the

quality of their experience and potentially put them at a disadvantage in terms of the skills

they develop.

Through a new question introduced into PTES over the last couple of years, we now have

the capability to shine a light on this at PGT level. We recognise that there are a large

number of PGT students who are part-time. In many cases this is a choice to balance work

commitments – and we would reasonably expect these part-time students to be up to speed

with the challenges around balancing work and study. However, among full-time PGT

students there is still a sizeable proportion who work – and who are likely to face particular

difficulties in fitting things in. We have therefore focused our analysis here on this full-time

cohort – which matches how the SAES survey analyses data at undergraduate level.

Note: Question on paid work is displayed as a % of all full-time students. Question on hours

spent is displayed as a % of those in paid work.

Around one in four full-time students spend time working for pay, although this does not

appear to be increasing. As the data shows, many of these students spend a significant

amount of time in their paid jobs, with up to 20 hours per week or even more being

reasonably common, including one in five (of those in paid work) who are working more than

30 hours per week in addition to their full-time studies.

20%

14%

39%

28%

23%

21%

13%

37%

30%

25%

(if yes) More than 30 hours per week

(if yes) 21–30 hours per week

(if yes) 11–20 hours per week

(if yes) Up to 10 or more hours per week

Paid work

Full-time students –paid work

2018

2019



22

Such a high workload may be expected to create a number of difficulties and a need for

support – as we have found through our undergraduate survey analysis. What is interesting

from the analysis below however is that if a student spends a small amount of time in paid

employment it appears to make no difference to their levels of satisfaction. However, there

are differences in satisfaction among students who spend 11 hours or more in paid work –

who are slightly less satisfied. These relatively small differences imply that at PGT level,

students are perhaps more used to or prepared for the challenges in balancing their time.

The results do show however that there are major differences in the likelihood to consider

leaving (charted here as the % who have not considered leaving), with those who do not

work being significantly less likely to consider leaving, in contrast to those who work for long

periods of time.

Note: Chart is based on full-time students only.

We can speculate from this analysis that the aspects of the experience which make students

generally satisfied (e.g. teaching, organisation, course challenge) are still in evidence

irrespective of employment commitments. However, the difficulties in balancing these

commitments may understandably lead to a greater risk of non-continuation, even among

satisfied students

11+ hours

None

0–10 hours

70

75

80

85

90

60 70 80 90

% S

ati

sfi

ed

% Had not considered leaving

Hours spent working for pay



23

8. Overseas students Comprising around one third 6 of the postgraduate taught population and contributing

significant fee income, meeting the needs of overseas students is critical to the success of

the UK PGT sector.

What is encouraging from the data below is that all main overseas cohorts, with the

exception of Australasia, are much less likely to have considered leaving their course than

their UK counterparts – which implies that they are more satisfied with their experience. This

is encouraging and provides strong evidence for the sector to help drive the continued

successful recruitment of PGT students from outside the UK.

One factor which potentially links to the positive experience of overseas students is the

relatively small amount of time they tend to spend working for pay.

6 https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/where-from (Accessed 21 October 2019)

28%

8%

14%16% 17% 17%

21%

32%

UK Asia Africa Middle East South America Other Europe North America Australasia

Considered leaving

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/where-from



24

As the above chart shows, overseas students are significantly less likely than UK (home)

students to spend time in paid employment during their PGT course. This is particularly the

case for students from Asia, South America and the Middle East, which is likely to be

contributing to a more positive experience and, following the findings in the previous

chapter, higher levels of retention. It is likely to be no coincidence that Asian students are

least likely to work for pay, and also least likely to consider leaving. By contrast, at the other

end of the scale, students from Australasia are the most likely to be working for pay (among

overseas students) and are the most likely to consider leaving.

9. Motivations towards study

9.1 Overall motivations towards study

The most common motivations for students were around future employment, with 61%

indicating progression in their current career path was a motivation, and 58% focused upon

improving their employment prospects. Personal interest in the discipline was also a strong

motivation.

37%

7%

22%13% 13% 18% 21%

31%

63%

93%

78%87% 87% 82% 79%

69%

UK Asia Africa Middle East SouthAmerica

Other Europe North America Australasia

Working for pay

Working for pay Not working for pay



25

Beyond this broad picture there were strong variations in motivation across a range of

factors related to the students’ background, their geographic origin, their stage of career and

life, which discipline they were studying, and how they were studying it. The following

analysis selects one particular factor, the students’ ethnicity, in order to explore some of

these variations further.

9.2 Motivations by ethnicity

For all the motivations there were relatively large differences driven by the ethnic

background of the students, and particularly so for motivations around progressing to a

higher-level qualification and improving employment prospects7.

In particular, Black students were much more likely to focus on career progression and

change, while Chinese students were particularly focused on current career requirements.

7 This section was informed by analysis of the combined six-year PTES dataset to ensure that findings for 2019 were reflected in previous years, with greater statistical confidence than afforded by a single year’s data.

10%

24%

24%

35%

51%

58%

61%

To meet the requirements of my current job

As a requirement to enter a particular profession

To change my current career

To enable me to progress to a higher-levelqualification

For personal interest

To improve my employment prospects

To progress in my current career path

Motivations towards study



26

9.3 Other factors combined with ethnicity

There is a significant difference across ethnicity in the extent to which students are taking

taught postgraduate study to progress to a higher-level qualification. For example, 40% of

students of Black ethnicity were motivated to progress to a higher-level qualification,

compared to 31% of students of White ethnicity. However, we have conducted discriminant

analysis8 which indicates that the qualification being studied, discipline, prior qualifications

achieved and institution attended were also influential factors alongside ethnicity.

The following analysis focuses on the qualification studied, which was particularly influential.

8 Discriminant analysis carried out in this section used the full six-year PTES dataset and was carried out in SPSS, using dummy variables for multiple categories.

Difference between minority and majority ethnic groups in motivations towards study

White Black Asian Chinese Mixed

To improve my employment prospects 52% +12% +5% +7% +7%

To enable me to progress to a higher-level qualification 31% +9% +6% +3% +6%

To change my current career 26% +11% -5% +2% +1%

To progress in my current career path 59% +2% +2% -3% +2%

To meet the requirements of my current job 9% -1% +1% +5% -3%

As a requirement to enter a particular profession 28% -1% -2% -1% +1%

For personal interest 50% -2% -3% -2% +4%

Base size 27613 2315 2693 977 1319

36%

43%

17%

24%

Proportion of students of White ethnicitymotivated by a wish to progress to a

higher-level qualification

Proportion of students of Black ethnicitymotivated by a wish to progress to a

higher-level qualification

Proportion motivated by a wish to progress to a higher qualification

Certificate / Diploma

Masters



27

As shown above, students studying for a Masters – irrespective of ethnicity – were much

more likely than those studying a Certificate/Diploma to be considering progression to a

higher-level qualification.

However, as shown below, a quarter of students of White ethnicity were studying for a

Certificate/Diploma, compared to just 16% of students of Black ethnicity. Hence, this

difference goes some way to explaining the finding in the earlier table which showed that

students of Black ethnicity are more likely than White students to cite progress to a higher

qualification as a motivation.

It is important to note, however, that in general, irrespective of the kind of discipline effect

identified here, there remained an ethnicity effect, as students of White ethnicity were

consistently less likely than minority ethnic groups to cite progression to a higher-level

qualification as a motivating factor.

10. Motivations towards institution

The reputation of institution and subject area were critical factors for many students in

deciding where and what to study. Over half (53%) of students made this decision based on

the overall reputation of the institution. For 44% of students, the content of the course was a

motivation and the location of the institution a motivation for 39% of respondents.

74%84%

26%16%

White Black

Proportion studying at different levels of qualification

Certificate/Diploma

Masters



28

As with motivations towards study, these motivations varied across different types of

student, reflecting the diversity of the taught postgraduate body. These motivations are

reflected in the kinds of discipline the student has chosen, and the university they have

chosen to study at.

10.1 Motivations by ethnicity

The motivation to attend the institution varied strongly across ethnicity. This is particularly

the case for factors related to the reputation and location of the institution, course delivery

and funding.

6%

9%

15%

16%

16%

17%

18%

21%

21%

22%

39%

41%

44%

53%

My employer advised or encouraged me to do it

It is the only institution offering this course

The cost of the course compared to other institutions

Funding was available to study this particular course

I have studied at this institution before

Reputation of the course tutors

Graduates have good career and employmentprospects

It was recommended to me

Delivery of the course is flexible enough to fit aroundmy life

The way the course is structured or assessed

Location of institution

Reputation in chosen subject area / department

The content of the course

Overall reputation of institution

Motivations to select the institution



29

10.2 Ethnicity and reputation of the institution

The statement that varied most by ethnicity was ‘overall reputation by institution’, which was

also the most common reason for selecting the institution overall. Interestingly, the relative

importance of this motivation varied very strongly depending on the institution attended, with

the proportion of students at an institution citing reputation as a motivation ranging from 85%

at one institution to just 7% at another. We might therefore wonder if the difference by

ethnicity was purely due to variation across types of institution. Whilst this is not the case for

all ethnicities, the difference in distribution of Chinese students between institutions is

striking.

Overall reputation of institution 42.3% +11% +12% +17% -5%

Location of institution 49.2% -6% -8% -17% -14%

Delivery of the course is flexible enough to fit around my life 27.0% +2% -6% -14% -8%

I have studied at this institution before 26.0% -3% -5% -12% -8%

Funding was available to study this particular course 21.0% +4% -5% -11% -6%

Graduates from here have good employment prospects 13.6% +7% +6% +10% -1%

The content of the course 43.6% -1% -4% -8% -9%

Reputation in chosen subject area / department 36.0% -1% +2% +7% -7%

The way the course is structured or assessed 21.3% +6% +2% -3% -5%

The cost of the course compared to other institutions 13.1% +5% +2% -3% -1%

My employer advised or encouraged me to do it 8.1% -3% -2% -1% -4%

It is the only institution offering this course 10.0% -2% -1% -4% -2%

It was recommended to me 18.8% -0% +1% +3% -3%

Reputation of the course tutors 18.4% -1% +0% -2% -4%

Base size 27613 2315 2693 977 1319



30

To explain this we can turn to the next chart, where we see that the destination of students

of Chinese ethnicity was far more linked to perceived institutional reputation than for

students of White ethnicity. Whilst 37% of students of White ethnicity attend HEIs that are

relatively unlikely to be chosen by reputation, just 7% of those of Chinese ethnicity do so.

10.3 Ethnicity and location of the institution

The location of the institution varied significantly across ethnicity, with 49% of students of

White ethnicity giving this as the main motivation, the largest factor for this population. In

contrast, just 32% of students of Chinese ethnicity, 35% of Mixed ethnicity, and 41% of

Asian ethnicity gave this as a motivation.

37%

7%

27%

15%

18%

38%

18%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

HEIs attended bystudents of White ethnicity

HEIs attended bystudents of Chinese ethnicity

Ethnicity by reputation

HEIs with very low proportion motivated by reputation

HEIs with low proportion motivated by reputation

HEIs with high proportion motivated by reputation

HEIs with very high proportion motivated by reputation



31

The figures above explore how the mode of study impacts on the difference in motivation

between students of Asian ethnicity and White ethnicity. The difference between part-time

students of Asian ethnicity and those of White ethnicity is only five percentage points, whilst

for full-time students it is 11 percentage points – with White students being much more likely

to be motivated by location.

However, the distribution of students across different modes of study is different across

ethnicity. We see below that 42% of students of White ethnicity study part time, compared to

just 31% for those of Asian ethnicity. As more students of White ethnicity are attending on a

part-time basis, where the location of the institution matters less than to those who are full

time, this reduces the overall difference observed. Hence, while White students are clearly

more likely to be motivated by location, the difference would likely have been even greater

had there been fewer part-time White students.

55%

44%

41%

36%

Proportion of students of White ethnicitymotivated by the location of the institution

Proportion of students of Asian ethnicitymotivated by the location of the institution

Location, ethnicity and study mode

Part-time Full-time



32

10.4 How motivation links to satisfaction

As we have seen, the reasons for selecting a particular institution can vary, from reasons

that reflect an active choice from a range of institutions (reputation) to reasons that may be

reflective of a more limited choice depending on a key factor such as cost or location.

The chart below shows how the type of choice made and reasons behind it appear to link

through to the quality of the subsequent experience.

58%

69%

42%

31%

Students of White ethnicity within mode

Students of Asian ethnicity within mode

Mode of study by ethnicity

Full-time Part-time



33

The chart is ordered left to right according to the level of overall satisfaction, and shows that

students who chose their PGT course based on its reputation, assessment or employment

prospects are subsequently a lot more satisfied than those who based their decision on cost,

location, or because it was the only institution offering the course. The results also show a

broadly similar pattern (but not one that is exactly the same), with students being more likely

to consider leaving where it was the only institution to which they could have gone.

This potentially provides some clear learnings for how students are recruited. By

encouraging an informed choice based on the academic strengths of a course, there is

evidence that HEIs can help students recognise the value as they go through their journey,

which may help them to consider how to get the most out of it.

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Re

puta

tio

n o

f tu

tors

Way the

cours

e is a

ssessed

Em

plo

ym

ent p

rosp

ects

Fle

xib

le d

eliv

ery

Re

puta

tio

n in s

ub

ject

Co

urs

e c

onte

nt

Re

puta

tio

n o

f in

stitu

tio

n

Word

of m

outh

Advis

ed b

y m

y e

mplo

yer

Stu

die

d h

ere

befo

re

Fun

din

g a

va

ilable

Lo

ca

tio

n o

f in

stitu

tio

n

Co

st

Only

institu

tion

offe

ring

the

cours

e

Level of satisfaction /

retention

Reasons for choosing an institution –link to satisfaction & retention

Overall satisfaction Not considered leaving



34

11. Conclusions

The PGT experience is positive, and levels of support are generally strong. Results in many

areas are moving in the right direction and hence this is an endorsement of the commitment

shown towards PGT provision across the sector.

Areas in need of significant improvement are relatively rare, but there is a consensus across

the analysis that any action taken to improve course organisation (eg timetabling, logistics)

and the level of support provided by tutors and supervisors would be likely to pay dividends.

Delivering a comparable experience to all types of student is an understandable challenge,

with results highlighting that students of Asian, Mixed and Other ethnicities do not always

experience the same levels of satisfaction. All these groups are comprised of a number of

different subgroups which makes identifying the underlying issues particularly difficult. How

ethnicity links to the quality of the experience appears to be an under-researched area that

would benefit from cross-sector collaboration in order to help understand what can be done

to help ensure a comparable experience for all.

At PGT level, working for pay is relatively common, and does not appear to impact on

satisfaction. It can, however, lead to an increased propensity to consider leaving the course.

Although students at PGT level may be better equipped than undergraduates to handle the

pressures of paid work alongside study, these results tell us that this is a key aspect where

institutions need to ensure they are providing appropriate help and support to those students

who are encountering difficulties.

PGT students who make their choice based on issues of quality and reputation tend to end

up being most satisfied. Hence, this has implications for how institutions promote their

courses. By highlighting attributes around reputation, content and employability, ahead of

issues such as location or cost, this may help students appreciate the wider benefits and

quality of their experience rather than focusing on more practical aspects which may lie

behind their initial choice.



35

12. Appendix

12.1 Participating institutions

Aberystwyth University Middlesex University University of Derby

Aston University Newcastle University University of East London

Bangor University Northumbria University University of Edinburgh

Bath Spa University Norwich University of the Arts University of Glasgow

Birkbeck, University of London Nottingham Trent University University of Greenwich

Birmingham City University Oxford Brookes University of Hull

Bournemouth University Queen Mary, University of London

University of Kent

Brunel University London Queen's University Belfast University of Leeds Business

School

Canterbury Christ Church University

Royal Northern College of Music

University of London School of

Advanced Study

Cardiff Metropolitan University Royal Veterinary College University of Northampton

Christies Education London Sheffield Hallam University

University of Reading

Coventry University SOAS, University of London University of Roehampton

Cranfield University Solent University University of Southampton

Durham University St Mary's University College, Belfast

University of St Mark & St John

Edinburgh Napier University St Mary's University, Twickenham

University of Stirling

Falmouth University Staffordshire University University of Strathclyde

Goldsmiths, University of London

Teesside University University of Sunderland

Harper Adams University The Open University University of the Arts London

Hartpury University The Royal Central School of

Speech and Drama

University of the Highlands and

Islands

Heriot-Watt University Ulster University University of the West of

England

Institute of Cancer Research University College Birmingham University of Wales Trinity

Saint David

Keele University University College London University of Warwick

Kings College London University of Bedfordshire University of West London

Leeds Beckett University University of Birmingham University of Westminster

Liverpool John Moores University

University of Bolton University of Winchester

Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine

University of Bradford University of Wolverhampton

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

University of Buckingham University of Worcester

London South Bank University University of Central Lancashire

York St John University

Loughborough University University of Chester

Contact us

General enquiries

+44 (0) 3300 416201

[email protected]

www.advance-he.ac.uk

Media enquiries

+44 (0) 1904 717500

[email protected]

www.advance-he.ac.uk/contact-us

@AdvanceHE

Advance HE enables excellence in higher education, helping it shape its future. Within

the UK and globally, Advance HE supports institutions in the areas of excellence in

education, transformative leadership, equity and inclusion and effective governance.

This is delivered through membership benefits (including accreditation of teaching,

equality charters, research, knowledge and resources), programmes and events,

Fellowships, awards, consultancy and enhancement services and student surveys.

Advance HE is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no.

04931031. Registered as a charity in England and Wales no. 1101607 Registered as

a charity in Scotland no. SC043946. The Advance HE logo should not be used

without our permission.

© 2019 Advance HE. All rights reserved.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily

those of Advance HE. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,

recording, or any storage and retrieval system without the written permission of the

copyright owner. Such permission will normally be granted for non-commercial,

educational purposes provided that due acknowledgement is given.

To request copies of this report in large print or in a different format,

please contact the Marketing and Communications Team at Advance HE:

+44 (0) 3300 416201 or [email protected]

If you would like further information about PRES, PTES or UKES please email:

[email protected] or call 01904 717500

http://www.advance-he.ac.uk/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]