Trinity 2007

Minutes of the Trinity Term 2007 Meeting of Postgraduate Assembly
Tuesday, May 8, 6.00pm
University Club, First Floor Lounge


I. The minutes from the previous meeting were approved

II. Matters Arising from the Minutes

A. The Chair reported that she had followed up on the mandate to look into the variety of Transfer of Status methods used by departments and seek to change those that were unnecessarily problematic by bringing the matter to the Pro Vice Chancellor for Education. The Educational Policy and Standards Committee has placed the investigation at the top of its agenda
B. Doron Schultziner (Lincoln) asked how long this would actually take, to which the Chair replied that the formation of a, EPSC working group was imminent

III. The Chair asked if there was any opposition to or points of discussion about the motions on the agenda. None were raised. At the request of Michael Craig (Linacre), a brief description of the reasoning behind each motion and the basic points embodied therein were summarised for the assembly. The following motions passed nem con:

A. Motion on Non-Fee-Paying Graduates and Affiliation Fees

B. Motion on Changing the Job Description of the Vice President (Graduates)

IV. All Other Business

Paul Clark, Head of Student Funding and Access introduced himself and made an informative presentation about the matters surrounding funding for postgraduates that the University must take into consideration.


Funding for Graduate Students

Current situation: Graduate Students at Oxford currently receive funding from a number of sources
- Externally funded awards
- Internally funded awards
- Loans

Sources of funding: Sources of funding for graduate students include the following
- Government Awards
- Awards from external organisation
- Central University awards
- Departmental awards
- College awards
- Loans from commercial providers
- Private means

Issues with the current situation: There are a number of issues relating to the current situation which need to be addressed
- Provision is uncoordinated- especially within Oxford
- Large number of small awards
- Information is hard to obtain
- The ‘market’ for provision is fragmented

Strategic Concerns: A number of strategic considerations are coming together, leading to the potential for change in this area
- Corporate Plan (http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2004-5/supps/corporate.htm)
- Embedding Graduate Studies
- International competition

Corporate Plan: The latest version of the Corporate Plan (2005-6 to 2009-10) makes explicit reference to the need for improved financial provision for graduate students
- Strategy IV (f): “Significantly expand funding through scholarships and bursaries and the availability of Academic Assistantships”

Embedding Graduate Studies: The agenda on embedding graduate studies in Oxford continues to be driven forward
- Multi-stranded approach to graduate studies
- Improved financial aid is important part of this
- Need for coordination with other parts of the strategy

International Competition: Increased international competition for the best     graduate students is having impact on Oxford’s position
- Graduate student market is more mobile
- Competing with top international universities
- Need to sustain a supply of high-quality graduate students
- Need to ensure that provision is competitive

Future Developments: Financial provision for graduate students can be placed at any point along the following spectrum
    LOANS ‡  ASSISTANTSHIPS ‡ FULL COST SCHOLARSHIPS

Scholarships: Issues and considerations with respect to full-cost scholarship include the following
- Sources of funding
- Increased flexibility
- Fundraising priorities
- Importance of substantial financial packages

Loans: Issues and considerations with respect to loans for graduate students include the following
- A number of new providers are entering the marker alongside existing operators
- Discounted loans offered at low cost to students
- Lifelong relationships formed with providers
   
Issues: A number of generic issues are currently being addressed with regard to financial provision for graduate students
- Coordination of financial provision with administrative processes
- Provision of information for potential students
- Gathering evidence to underpin policy developments


ANALYSIS OF PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM POSTGRADUATE ASSEMBLY MEETING ON FUNDING PROJECT

• Do we have data on why people don’t accept offers at Oxford, looked at by PGT and PGR? Presumably it depends on the department

• We’re trying to put the data together – to build the admissions funnel that shows how many people apply, how many get offers, how many accept, and how many enrol – and then try to understand why people drop off.
• We’re interested in both PGT and PGR students and it does vary hugely by department.

• Embedding graduate studies seems to be more focused on PGR students rather than PGT

Embedding graduates studies addresses both – though the fact that DPhil programmes are less structured and more supervisor-dependent may be why people have started there.

• What are we trying to solve for? Expectations are very high

Ambitions are high too. We want a funding solution that is as all-encompassing as possible, though the right answer may differ from department to department.

• There are lots of colleges who provide money. Will there be the same chance for students of any college to get the money?
• We’d like to be able to link up funding in colleges with funding in other parts of the university.
• And yes, we want students to have access to generous funding regardless of the college they’re at.

MAIN MESSAGES FROM POSTGRADUATE DISCUSSION GROUPS
Oxford’s postgraduate funding suffers from many weaknesses

• Lack of information
• Applicants lack information in advance of application on:
– The true cost of living and studying in Oxford
– All available scholarships including university, department, college, through a central list
– Detailed information about the scholarships: how they are competitive, how many are offered, level of funding provided, eligibility criteria
– Available travel and research grants
• The lack of transparency is important:
– One student did not know that there was a college scholarship specifically provided for someone of his nationality and previous university until he heard about it at the last minute from his friends
– Another student believed that she was eligible for a Clarendon or ORS award, only to find out later that in practice, her department (Politics) in practice never gives this to M.Phil students
– A student applying for an ORISHA scholarship was not clear on which master’s courses were available or not

• High administrative  burden and errors (simultaneously)
• Too many different applications and forms
• For some funding options (e.g., loans), U.S. universities would handle the administration; Oxford leaves this to the student, which is confusing for the loan company and a burden for the student
• High burden of proof and sign-off for claiming research and conference expenses
• Many accounts of administrative errors:
– ORS application lost
– Fake rejection letter issued for ORS due to ‘system error’, followed by real one
– Candidate told that a letter had been sent a month previously but the candidate had heard nothing

• Unhelpful timelines
• Oxford’s funding decisions come after the deadlines for acceptance at competitor institutions (mainly U.S.); people need to know in May

• Absolute lack of funding/narrow range of funding options
• Many scholarships are for ‘unrealistic amounts’; we don’t provide information at the point of offer on how best to top these up
• Loans are a much less well developed option here than in the U.S.
• Students are enthusiastic about the option to do some teaching or demonstrating the lab – but there is no comprehensive list of opportunities (e.g., at departmental level, centrally)

• Oxford relies on its academic strengths to compensate for its funding weaknesses
• People are turning down offers with better funding to come here, usually attracted by the strength of a department (Archaeology cited as one example)
• The ability to do a doctorate in three years is a big attraction over the U.S., so we need to be careful about how much we allow people to burden themselves with teaching and other work
• Our prestigious scholarships (e.g., Rhodes) have big pull

• There are some straightforward things we can do to improve things, immediately
• Make all the relevant scholarship information for the collegiate university available through:
– The Oxford scholarship website
– Other external information sources (e.g., COS scholarships website)
• Move applications online [which we’re doing]
• Shift our deadlines so that we run to the same timetable as American universities
• Educate academics about the range of funding options available
• Encourage departments to make information on work opportunities available

• Ultimately, people want a simpler process, not to ‘muddle through’
• People want to be provided with a single offer, in a timely way:
– University admission
– College place
– Funding offer

 Postgraduate funding questionnaire
V. Sample
25 responses to the Questionnaire were received.
The questionnaire was completed by roughly equal numbers of students from each of the divisions (excluding Continuing Education).
Over two thirds of respondents had completed their first degree outside the UK.  Only three students had been Oxford undergraduates.
PGR students were slightly under-represented in the sample at 56% (these students make up 63% of Oxford’s postgraduate population).
The sample was probably broadly representative of the University’s postgraduate population with regard to fees status: 48% of students were citizens of non-EU countries (these students make up 45% of the postgraduate population at Oxford).
VI. Responses
A. Comparison of funding with other institutions
Figure 1 shows the ratings of the funding offer, compared to Oxford, at other institutions from which respondents had received offers (Q.4).
15 respondents (40% of the sample) had received offers from other institutions.  All US institutions mentioned by respondents offered ‘better’ funding than Oxford. Half of the UK institutions mentioned provided ‘the same’ funding for the course in question. However, UCL was cited twice as offering better funding than Oxford.  This was also the case with two UK Universities offering Engineering Doctorates (Cranfield & Loughborough).  This suggests the need for comprehensive competitor benchmarking, allowing for differences across divisions and departments.
Figure 2 shows opinions of Oxford’s funding relative to other Universities considered by respondents (Q.8).
Overall, this data shows that some students are turning down better offers of funding elsewhere to come to Oxford.  Further research is needed with decliners to determine the extent to which better or clearer funding offers are leading other promising students to accept places elsewhere. 
 

 
B. Reasons for Coming to Oxford & Suggested Priorities
Figure 3 shows the number of positive responses to each factor in consideration of Oxford (Q.5).  ‘Other’ responses included the prestige of a particular scholarship and the length of the PhD course.
The data suggests that currently the reputation of the university and of particular courses are more of an attraction to students than the availability of funding.
Figure 4 shows where respondents think Oxford should concentrate its efforts in addressing postgraduate funding (Q.9).  NB respondents were not instructed to circle one thing only for this questions and 15 respondents in fact circled more than one.  This suggests the perceived need for significant improvement in a number of areas, notably in the provision of opportunities for relevant work experience and the generosity of funding packages.
 
 
B. Nature of Current Funding

Figure 5 shows the distribution of primary funding sources among the students in the sample (Q.6a).
Of these, nearly half would not have come to Oxford without this funding (Q.6b).  Only around half of those who responded to Q.7 (52%) said their primary source of funding covered fees and generous maintenance, suggesting a high number of students with a package of funding from various sources.