England’s higher education regulator to ‘raise quality bar’

Dropout rates, employment rates etc... should be adjusted for the unemployment rates in the year of graduation, and quality of student intake etc... It does not make sense to talk about all these outcomes without such adjustments. In addition, stop using silly student surveys as indices of teaching quality - evidence shows that it does not measure teaching quality. Call it consumer experience or satisfaction if you have to because it is a more accurate description - students can be happy but learn nothing from their degree courses. Include employer's evaluation of how well prepared/trained graduates are as relevant to their degrees - sample employers who have employed specific graduates from specific universities and not just some random impressionistic survey.

"some 65,000 students on courses in 2018-19 – 3 percent of all students − would not have made these baselines if this approach had been taken, it explains". Is this at the 75% or 90% threshold? Either way it is disappointing to have this level of drop out and the reasons behind the drop out should be investigated. If it is based on the 90% at subject level this may be a fair price to pay. We do not stop schools from trying to help disadvantaged students learn GCSE maths just because 10% or more fail to get a good grade. I wonder how many students complete a 3 year degree course without being awarded a degree? Surely this figure might be a better indicator of which subjects at which Universities are not providing value for money?

How does a high drop out rate or even a low pass rate for a particular subject at a particular University signify "low quality courses"? The drop out may be because the content of the course is not popular with the students. The low pass rate may be because the content is too challenging for the average student. When a cohort of students from disadvantaged backgrounds performs less well than the average, why is the University to blame. Surely the Ofs should be measuring the "value added" by the University rather than the absolute level? "All students are entitled to the same minimum level of quality and outcomes, and it would be untenable to have a regulatory system which allowed universities to recruit students from underrepresented groups but then set lower expectations for their success,” said Ms Dandridge." This is a ridiculous statement, particularly with reference to "outcomes". What does it actually mean? Where is the proof that Universities are setting " lower expectations for their success"? The fact that they may get lower grades is not proof.

A high drop out rate in the first year and a low pass rate are signs of demanding and high quality courses (at least on the continent). British HE policy is deluded but very predictable.