Introduction - Destinations of Leavers 2006/07

This publication is one of four reference volumes published annually by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). HESA is a company limited by guarantee, and is owned by the United Kingdom (UK) higher education sector through the representative bodies Universities UK and GuildHE (formerly the Standing Conference of Principals). HESA collects data from publicly funded higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK on behalf of funding bodies and government departments, in a framework underpinned by legislation.

This volume draws on the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey, which replaced the previous First Destinations Supplement (FDS) for 2002/03. Strictly speaking, this publication is based on the first phase of DLHE, and provides information about patterns of employment and further study or training at a point about six months after completion. The second phase is a follow-up survey on a sample basis approximately three years and six months after completion.¹ All subsequent references to DLHE in this volume relate to the first phase.

The DLHE survey covers leavers from part-time as well as full-time programmes, a major extension relative to FDS. However, it is limited to those of UK and other EU domicile (as recorded at the point of entry to the programme in question). The leavers included in the survey reported in this volume are those who completed their programmes during the academic year 2006/07, that is, the period 1 August 2006 to 31 July 2007. It covers data supplied by 169 HEIs (133 in England, 12 in Wales, 20 in Scotland, 4 in Northern Ireland). The volume includes data from the University of Buckingham, which is not a publicly funded institution. The data capture is undertaken by HEIs but the procedure is prescribed by HESA and, with some degree of detailed flexibility, is uniform across all institutions, regardless of size, nature, and location. A standard questionnaire printed by HESA is used; this is also available in Welsh, for use on request in Welsh institutions only.

For 2002/03, a fixed date, 15 January 2004, was used as the date relating to which information was sought through DLHE, this date being chosen so as to capture as completely as possible both employment and study commencing shortly after the start of the calendar year. For the 2003/04 DLHE return, two reference dates were used, and this pattern has been followed for subsequent years and is now standard. The reference date for those obtaining the qualification between 1 August 2006 and 31 December 2006 was 16 April 2007, and the reference date for those obtaining the qualification between 1 January 2007 and 31 July 2007 was 14 January 2008. The purpose of splitting the collection in this way is to bring the gap between the date of qualification and the reference date closer to the six-month target.

The analysis of the responses to the DLHE survey in some cases depends on the survey returns alone, but many tabulations rely on linking the DLHE return to the student returns submitted earlier for the same individual through the student record collection. This allows, for example, joint analysis of subject studied and subsequent work and/or study. It is from the student record collection that the list of qualifiers eligible to be included in DLHE is constructed.

Format of publications

Commencing with the 2002/03 cycle of publications, HESA reference volumes now comprise a relatively slim printed volume containing only a limited range of tables, together with a CD, which contains all the remaining data familiar to users from earlier years, supplemented with additional and more detailed tables. The tables on the CD are in Microsoft® Excel 2003 format. This has the further benefit of allowing users to select data from the tables and manipulate how it is displayed. However, arithmetical manipulations should be carried out with caution because of the effect of the rounding strategy described below.

Other HESA publications

The other reference volumes published by HESA are as follows.

Students in Higher Education Institutions. This volume draws on HESA’s collection of data about students in HEIs. It includes information at the institutional level about entry qualifications, programmes taken, and outcomes, together with background variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, and disability. Data on HE provision in further education colleges is not included in this volume except for students funded indirectly through HEIs, in which case it is reported by the HEI through which funding passes.

Resources of Higher Education Institutions. This volume brings together information about the finances and the staff of HEIs. Tabulations are included that record and analyse income and expenditure, and the characteristics of staff, at the institutional level.

Higher Education Statistics for the United Kingdom. This is the only HESA reference volume that currently falls within the National Statistics framework, and it accordingly carries the National Statistics logo as well as that of HESA. It provides an overview of higher education in the UK from a statistical perspective, including statistics about applications, participation, institutional finance, staffing, student awards, and loans. To achieve this broad coverage, this volume draws on data collected by other bodies as well as HESA, and in particular includes some information about directly funded HE provision in Further Education Colleges.

HESA also publishes annually two Statistical First Releases within the National Statistics framework, and detailed data for institutional planning purposes on CD (HE Planning Plus and HE Finance Plus). Research Data packs dealing with specific issues are produced on an occasional basis on CD. The HESA Information Provision Service exists to meet more specialist needs of data users on a bespoke basis.

The heidi management information system was launched by HESA in April 2007, following a joint development project with The University of Leeds and the British Universities Finance Directors’ Group. The development of heidi was funded by the funding bodies in the four administrations, together with inputs from the project partners and other institutions. It provides institutions and other approved organisations with access to large amounts of data collected by HESA and other bodies on a subscription basis, and includes the material formerly published by HESA as the Higher Education Management Statistics at institutional level.

Data protection

In order to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998, HESA implements a strategy in published and released tabulations designed to minimise the risk of disclosure of personal information about any individual. The tabulations in the volume are derived from the HESA non-statutory populations² and may differ slightly from those published by related statutory bodies or in National Statistics publications. This strategy involves rounding all numbers to the nearest multiple of 5. A summary of this strategy is as follows:

1. 0, 1, 2 are rounded to 0
2. All other numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5.

So for example 3 is represented as 5, 22 is represented as 20, 3286 is represented as 3285 while 0, 20, 55, 3510 remain unchanged.

This rounding strategy is also applied to total numbers, the consequence of which is that the sum of numbers in each row or column rarely matches the total shown precisely. Note that subject level data calculated by apportionment is also rounded in accordance with this strategy.

Average values, proportions and FTE values prepared by HESA are not usually affected by the above strategy, and are calculated on precise raw numbers.

Percentages calculated on populations that contain 52 or fewer individuals are suppressed and represented as ‘..’ as are averages based on populations of 7 or fewer.

Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions 2006/07

Response rates

The coverage of the DLHE survey is limited to qualifiers of UK and other European Union (EU) domicile.³ It excludes those domiciled outside the EU. Qualifiers from part-time programmes are included.

Qualifiers with known destinations

For DLHE in 2006/07 there were 267,605 valid responses from a possible total of 357,880 qualifiers from full-time programmes, a percentage with known destinations of 74.8% (2005/06: 74.8%; 2004/05: 76.0%). There were 64,505 valid responses from a possible total of 96,005 qualifiers from part-time programmes, a percentage with known destinations of 67.2% (68.6%; 67.5%). In total there were 332,110 valid responses from 453,880 qualifiers, giving a survey-wide figure of 73.2% (73.5%; 74.2%).

7,225 full-time and 3,040 part-time qualifiers replied to the survey but explicitly declined to give information. They are not included in the above numbers of valid responses. Nor are those whose responses were insufficiently complete to be valid, or were rejected through failing any other test of validity.

Performance against target response rates

Target response rates for DLHE are set separately for full-time and part-time qualifiers and for UK and other EU qualifiers. Because these targets are a measure of institutional success in obtaining some form of response from qualifiers, explicit refusals are here included with valid responses. Also, the very small numbers of qualifiers reported to institutions as deceased are included. The following table shows the position for DLHE in 2006/07.

Table i	Responses	Qualifiers	Rate	Target Rate
Full-time UK	258845	328250	78.9%	80%
Full-time other EU	15985	29625	54.0%	50%
Part-time UK	65665	92340	71.1%	70%
Part-time other EU	1880	3660	51.4%	50%

It can be seen that for qualifiers of UK domicile, the full-time response rate fell short of the target by a margin of 1.1%, and the part-time response rate achieved the target by a margin of 1.1%. For 2005/06 the achieved rates were 78.7%, 51.4%, 72.4% and 50.4%, and for 2004/05 they were 79.9%, 47.5%, 71.1%, and 44.0%, in the same order as the rows of Table i. So for qualifiers of UK domicile the response rate from full-time qualifiers remained steady in 2006/07 following a fall of about 1% in 2005/06, whereas the part-time response rate dropped back in 2006/07 to its 2004/05 level after a rise of just over 1% in 2005/06. For qualifiers of other EU domicile, the response rate for qualifiers from full-time programmes showed a further considerable rise of 2.5%, and the response rate for qualifiers from part-time programmes rose by a further 1% after a large rise in 2005/06 (on small absolute numbers); both of these rates achieved the 50% target in 2006/07. Most of the tabulations in this volume are limited to qualifiers of UK domicile, which is often the main focus of interest in the results from DLHE.

DLHE response rates vary greatly between institutions, and are dependent in part on the amount of resource committed by an institution to the various stages of the process. Information about the mode of collection (postal, telephone, web, …) is included in the returns made to HESA, and will inform the future development of the survey.

Key points

Figures in brackets are for 2005/06 and for 2004/05, in that order, and are provided for comparison.

Of the 267,605 (262,635; 258,420) full-time qualifiers of UK or other-EU domicile for whom a valid DLHE return was made, 198,925, or 74.3% (194,225, or 74.0%; 190,205, or 73.6%) reported that they were working in either full- or part-time employment, or were self-employed or freelance, or were doing voluntary/unpaid work; in each case numbers include those studying as well as working. The number studying, including those working as well as studying, was 65,525, or 24.5% (62,835, or 23.9%; 60,960, or 23.6%). The number assumed to be unemployed was 14,040, or 5.2% (15,030, or 5.7%; 15,385, or 6.0%).

Of the 64,505 (65,120; 60,840) part-timers, 56,715, or 87.9% (57,080, or 87.7%; 53,250, or 87.5%) were working, and 1,535, or 2.4% (1,640, or 2.5%; 1,510, or 2.5%) were assumed to be unemployed. There were 14,570, or 22.6% (14,435, or 22.2%; 13,860, or 22.8%) part-time qualifiers continuing to study, a percentage almost identical to that of full-time qualifiers, but most of these part-time qualifiers combined work with study.

The proportion of full-time qualifiers of other-EU domicile who were studying only was almost twice that of all full-time qualifiers, offset by a corresponding reduction in the proportion of those who were working only. The unemployment rate was the same as the overall figure. However, the response rate from other-EU qualifiers is lower than that for UK qualifiers, and there is a possibility of non-response bias.

All subsequent key points relate to UK-domiciled qualifiers only.

Of the 251,985 (248,435; 245,955) qualifiers from full-time programmes for whom a valid DLHE return was made, 189,155, or 75.1% (185,350, or 74.6%; 182,715, or 74.3%) were working and 59,560, or 23.6% (57,655, or 23.2%; 56,355, or 22.9%) were studying. The number assumed to be unemployed was 13,225, or 5.2% (14,210, or 5.7%; 14,510, or 5.9%).

Of the 62,690 (63,425; 59,380) qualifiers from part-time programmes, 55,210, or 88.1% (55,715, or 87.8%; 52,085, or 87.7%) were working and 14,155, or 22.6% (14,075, or 22.2%; 13,505, or 22.7%) were studying. The number assumed to be unemployed was 1,475, or 2.4% (1,570, or 2.5%; 1,455, or 2.4%).

Unemployment rates of qualifiers from full-time programmes were 3.6% (3.8%; 4.0%) for postgraduates, 5.8% (6.4%; 6.6%) for first degree students, and 3.9% (4.0%; 3.6%) for other undergraduates. The unemployment rates for females were uniformly lower than for males; for full-time first degree students the figures were 4.8% (5.1%; 5.2%) for females and 7.2% (8.1%; 8.5%) for males. Unemployment rates for qualifiers from part-time programmes followed a broadly similar pattern but were considerably lower than the corresponding full-time rates.

Younger qualifiers from both full-time and part-time programmes were closer to the ‘study’ end of the work-study spectrum and older ones to the ‘work’ end.

Among qualifiers from full-time first degree programmes, the highest proportions of those working were in Medicine & dentistry, Veterinary science, Subjects allied to medicine, and Education, all above 80%. The highest proportions of those studying were in Law, at over 55%, and Mathematical sciences, Physical sciences, and Historical & philosophical studies, all above 30%. Computer science had the highest unemployment rate, at just under 10%, and Creative arts & design, Mass communications & documentation, and Combined studies, were all above 7%. Hardly any Medicine & dentistry qualifiers were unemployed. The rate in Veterinary science was just under 2% and the rates in Education, Architecture, building & planning, Law, and Subjects allied to medicine were between 3% and 4%. The figures for Medicine & dentistry should be interpreted in the light of the fact that these are quota-controlled subjects.

Among qualifiers from full-time first degree programmes who were working, 35.3% (34.6%; 33.4%) were in occupations classified as ‘Managers & senior officials’ or ‘Professional’, whereas 4.2% (4.6%; 4.6%) were in ‘Elementary occupations’ under the Standard Occupational Classification.

Of those qualifiers from full-time programmes who were working, 81.8% (81.5%; 82.1%) were in full-time paid work, 13.6% (14.1%; 13.5%) in part-time paid work, 3.2% (3.1%; 3.1%) were self-employed (or freelance), and 1.5% (1.4%; 1.3%) were doing voluntary or unpaid work. Apart from a somewhat larger percentage who were self-employed, the pattern for qualifiers from part-time programmes was similar. Men were considerably more likely than women to be self-employed, but the major gender difference was among qualifiers from part-time programmes, where women were three times more likely at 18.3% (18.4%; 19.1%) to be in part-time employment than men at 6.1% (5.6%; 5.9%).

Of those doing full-time paid work, 2.7% (2.9%; 2.6%) of full-time and 1.3% (1.3%; 1.3%) of part-time qualifiers were known to be working outside the UK, as were 8.8% (9.2%; 9.2%) of doctorate-level qualifiers doing full-time paid work – a measure of the ‘brain drain’.

Of qualifiers from full-time first degree programmes, 9.2% (8.7%; 8.6%) proceeded to study for a higher degree. Of qualifiers from full-time other undergraduate programmes, 31.7% (30.2%; 28.8%) proceeded to study for a first degree. For part-time qualifiers, these ‘conventional’ articulation rates were considerably lower.

Of those respondents achieving Qualified Teacher Status or the equivalent, 90.3% (89.6%; 90.4%) were employed as teachers, and a further 4.1% (5.3%; 4.5%) were seeking a teaching post. Of those known to be in a teaching post, 88.3% (87.6%; 88.2%) were teaching solely in the maintained (state) sector.

Of qualifiers from part-time programmes who were employed during or just before their studies, three-quarters reported some form of employer support, usually in the form of payment of tuition fees and/or the granting of study leave.

The median salary for male qualifiers from full-time first degree programmes employed in the UK, at £20,000 was higher than that for female qualifiers, at £18,000; the salary figure is collected to the nearest £1,000. The highest-paying jobs tended to go to males. For qualifiers from part-time programmes, males had a substantially higher median salary, £27,000 against £24,000, and a very much larger proportion in the highest category (£40,000 and above).

Summary results with EU coverage

Chart 1 shows the proportions of all qualifiers (that is, including both those of UK domicile and those of other-EU domicile) falling into each work-study reporting category. Table A provides a detailed breakdown of all the responses to the DLHE survey, using the factors mode, level, domicile, and gender.

The following percentages are derived from Table A, where, here and in what follows, ‘work only’ comprises the categories of full-time paid work only (including self-employed), part-time paid work only, and voluntary/unpaid work only.

Table ii	Work only	Work & study	Study only	Assumed unemployed	Total returns
Full-time	65.4%	8.9%	15.5%	5.2%	267605
Part-time	70.3%	17.6%	5.0%	2.4%	64505

The proportion of part-time qualifiers continuing to study (including those working and studying) at 22.6% was very close to that of full-time qualifiers at 24.5%, but almost four-fifths of these part-time qualifiers combined study with work whereas less than two-fifths of full-time qualifiers did so.

For full-time qualifiers of other-EU domicile, the corresponding percentages were as follows.

Table iii	Work only	Work & study	Study only	Assumed unemployed	Total returns
Full-time other EU	52.3%	10.2%	28.0%	5.2%	15615

These percentages show a substantial shift from work only to study only, by comparison with the overall pattern, with a slightly higher percentage of full-time other-EU qualifiers both working and studying. This shift occurred for qualifiers from all levels of study. The percentage of those assumed to be unemployed (the unemployment rate) was however only a small amount greater than the overall figure. For this reason further analysis of data including both UK and other-EU qualifiers is limited to unemployment.

For full-time qualifiers, the unemployment rate was 3.9% for postgraduates, 5.8% for first degree students, and 3.9% for other undergraduates. For part-time qualifiers, the corresponding figures were 1.6%, 3.8%, and 1.8%.

For full-time first degree qualifiers, the unemployment rate was 4.8% for females and 7.1% for males. The corresponding part-time figures were 3.4% and 4.6%.

Summary results with UK coverage

The remainder of this introductory material reports numbers for qualifiers with UK domicile.

The overall effect of level of study, derived from the UK data in Table A, was as follows.

Table iv	Work only	Work & study	Study only	Assumed unemployed	Total returns
Full-time postgraduate	79.1%	7.2%	6.9%	3.6%	45720
Full-time first degree	64.7%	8.7%	15.2%	5.8%	182825
Full-time other undergraduate	52.8%	13.6%	26.3%	3.9%	23445
Part-time postgraduate	76.8%	15.3%	2.7%	1.6%	31555
Part-time first degree	68.8%	15.3%	5.4%	3.8%	20400
Part-time other undergraduate	54.5%	29.3%	10.2%	1.8%	10730

Qualifiers from both full-time and part-time other undergraduate programmes had a high propensity to continue studying. Qualifiers from part-time postgraduate programmes were more likely to continue studying than were qualifiers from full-time postgraduate programmes, but articulation rates for qualifiers from full-time and part-time first degree programmes were similar. Unemployment for qualifiers from part-time programmes was considerably lower than for those from full-time programmes, but followed the same pattern, with the other undergraduate and postgraduate rates being similar to one another and much lower than the first degree rate.

For qualifiers from full-time first degree programmes, the percentages by gender were as follows.

Table v                                   Full-time first degree	Work only	Work & study	Study only	Assumed unemployed	Total returns
Female	65.6%	8.8%	15.3%	4.8%	105050
Male	63.5%	8.5%	15.2%	7.2%	77775

The work-study pattern was similar, but the unemployment rate for females was much lower than that for males.

Table B is similar to the UK part of Table A, but provides a breakdown by age group. Those of unknown age are included only in totals.

The pattern for full-time qualifiers by gender and age group was as follows.

Table vi Full-time	Work only	Work & study	Study only	Assumed unemployed	Total returns
Female 24 years & under	66.2%	8.6%	16.1%	4.2%	106595
Female 25 years & over	72.2%	9.9%	8.5%	4.8%	42135
Male 24 years & under	62.0%	8.6%	17.3%	6.7%	79705
Male 25 years & over	69.6%	9.3%	11.4%	6.1%	23540

Unemployment for females was much lower than for males. Younger qualifiers were closer to the ‘study’ end of the spectrum and older ones to the ‘work’ end.

The corresponding percentages for qualifiers from part-time programmes were as follows.

Table vii Part-time	Work only	Work & study	Study only	Assumed unemployed	Total returns
Female 24 years & under	63.9%	16.5%	10.3%	4.2%	3025
Female 25 years & over	70.4%	18.1%	4.4%	2.0%	35610
Male 24 years & under	65.1%	16.9%	9.8%	4.9%	3835
Male 25 years & over	72.3%	17.5%	4.0%	2.2%	20155

Again, unemployment for females was lower than for males, but the differences were smaller than for full-time qualifiers. Younger qualifiers were again closer to the ‘study’ end of the spectrum and older ones to the ‘work’ end, but unemployment for older qualifiers was much lower than for younger ones.

Subject of study

Tables Ci and Cii, giving figures for qualifiers from full-time and part-time programmes respectively, tabulate work-study category by subject studied, for each level of study.

Work, study, and unemployment rates varied greatly between subject areas at the six-month point. In some cases the outcome was an obvious consequence of the characteristics of the subject area. For full-time first degree qualifiers, the highest and lowest three rates in each category were as follows.

Table viii	Work (incl. work & study)		Study (incl. work & study)		Assumed unemployed
Highest	Medicine & dentistry	94.6%	Law	55.6%	Computer science	9.9%
Second highest	Veterinary science	94.1%	Mathematical sciences	39.3%	Creative arts & design	8.2%
Third highest	Subjects allied to medicine	85.7%	Physical sciences	35.0%	Mass communications & documentation	7.7%
Third lowest	Historical & philosophical studies	62.4%	Medicine & dentistry	12.6%	Education	3.1%
Second lowest	Physical sciences	60.1%	Mass communications & documentation	11.0%	Veterinary science	1.9%
Lowest	Law	45.7%	Veterinary science	6.7%	Medicine & dentistry	0.2%

Occupational classification

Table D gives figures for working qualifiers, broken down by mode and level of study, and by gender, according to the Standard Occupational Classification of the work they were doing.

Among qualifiers from full-time first degree programmes who were working (including those who were also studying), 35.3% were in occupations classified as ‘Managers & senior officials’ or ‘Professional’, whereas 4.2 % were in ‘Elementary occupations’.

Tables Ei and Eii, giving figures for working qualifiers from full-time and part-time programmes respectively, tabulate for each level of study the Standard Occupational Classification of the post held against the Standard Industrial Classification of the employer.

Basis and location of work

Table F shows the patterns of work of those qualifiers who were working, broken down by mode and level of study, and gender. It includes those who were also continuing to study. For those in full-time paid work, it shows the location of work and, where known, the contract duration.

The pattern of work by mode of study and gender was as follows.

Table ix	Full-time paid	Part-time paid	Self-employed or freelance	Voluntary or unpaid	Total returns
Full-time female	81.6%	14.5%	2.5%	1.5%	114345
Full-time male	82.1%	12.2%	4.3%	1.3%	74810
Part-time female	77.1%	18.3%	3.7%	1.0%	33950
Part-time male	88.2%	6.1%	5.1%	0.7%	21260

For full-time qualifiers, the percentage of males who were self-employed or freelance was substantially larger than for females. This was also true, to a lesser extent, for part-time qualifiers, but in that case there was also a major difference in the balance between full-time and part-time work, with females three times more likely than males to be working part-time.

Of full-time qualifiers who were in full-time paid work, 1.1% were working in other EU countries, and 1.6% outside the EU. For part-time qualifiers the figures were 0.5% and 0.8% respectively. Of all doctorate-level qualifiers who were in full-time paid work, 2.8% were working in other EU countries, and 6.0% outside the EU.

Type of study

Table G shows the subsequent study patterns of those qualifiers who continued to study, broken down by mode and level of previous study, and by gender. It includes those who were also working.

Of the total number of qualifiers from full-time first degree programmes as reported in Table B, 23.9% proceeded to further study. 9.2% of that total, 38.3% of those who proceeded, moved on to study for a higher degree. The corresponding part-time percentages were 20.7%, 5.7%, and 27.5%.

Of the total number of qualifiers from full-time other undergraduate programmes, 39.9% proceeded to further study. 31.7% of that total, 79.6% of those who proceeded, moved on to first degree studies. The corresponding part-time percentages were 39.5%, 25.3%, and 64.0%.

Newly qualified teachers

Table H provides information about newly qualified teachers. It provides a breakdown by administration, gender, and age group, and shows the sector (maintained/non-maintained, also known as state/independent) and the level of the school or college in which the respondent was teaching.

Across the UK, 90.3% of those respondents achieving Qualified Teacher Status were employed as teachers, and a further 4.1% were seeking a teaching post. Of those known to be in a teaching post, 88.3% were teaching solely in the maintained (state) sector. The percentage teaching only at the primary level was 48.6%, at the secondary level or both levels 49.9%, and at a college or other educational establishment 1.6%.

Employer sponsorship for part-time study

Table I shows patterns of employer sponsorship for qualifiers from part-time programmes who were employed during or just before their studies.

Three-quarters of those responding reported some form of employer support. Payment of tuition fees was the commonest form of support. Grants to cover living expenses as well were uncommon, study leave being the common form of personal support. This pattern of support applied regardless of level of study and of gender.

Salary levels

Table J shows the distribution, by £5,000 bands, of salaries reported (to the nearest £1,000) by qualifiers from first degree programmes who entered or continued in full-time UK employment.

Chart 2 displays this information separately for qualifiers from full-time and part-time programmes, subdivided by gender.

The median salary for female qualifiers from full-time programmes was somewhat below that for males and the high-paying jobs tended to go to males. For qualifiers from part-time programmes the distributions were quite different, with males not only having a substantially higher median salary, but also a very much larger proportion in the highest category.

---

¹ A pilot survey was carried out in January 2006 on a test sample from the 2002/03 leaving cohort, two years and six months from completion. The results from this have not been published, but were used to inform the design of the first full survey, on a disjoint sample from the same cohort, and this was conducted in early 2007. Reports on that survey are available on the HESA website www.hesa.ac.uk under the ‘DLHE longitudinal survey’ tab. A sample from the 2004/05 cohort will be surveyed in early 2009, and an alternate-year pattern is likely to be followed thereafter.

² Non-statutory populations omit any contribution from individuals who have notified HESA of their wish to be excluded in circumstances such as the publication of the present volume where inclusion is not defined as a requirement by the bodies whose statutory powers underpin HESA data collection.

³ The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK or the EU, but, as in other HESA publications, students with these domiciles are included in UK figures unless separated out explicitly.