[Unistats] Full Year Enrolment statistics

[Ted Gallop]

Hello All,

It's nice to see a debate developing about the reporting of full year
student stats. The problem will not go away and I fear will get worse as
more and more people delve into the numbers in all their miriad forms. 

I agree that reporting by semester will lead to less confusion, but it will
be more work for some. An annual 'summary type' figure is also nice to have
for people used to simple numbers (politicians and uni administrators?). A
simple indication is the IDP. They use the term 'as at 31st March' and 'as
at 31st August' to ask for semester based information, and are given whole
year information by some universities, (read as at the specified dates). IDP
don't know they are getting mixed numbers, and nor do the general users of
their published data. 

The original method of measuring the 'year' as at 31st March is clearly
anachronistic. It's only advantage is that the figures are available early.
However, they should not be the official 'record' of the year. It is
confusing for many to have the 31st March figures reported as 'DETYA'
figures, and in the next breath 31st August load figures are the 'official
DETYA figures' because of the operating grant implications.
There are no easy answers, particularly with the increasing use of
non-semester based studying periods. Will a trimester system, when it
becomes common, make semester based reporting confusing?. Will we end up
with two trimester being reported as one semesters and one trimester in the
other? 

The time is nigh for a general review, and I'm sure the existing
shortcomings are very apparent to our DETYA colleagues. I think the
publication of the 'official' record of each year can wait until the next,
when all the data is 'in'. It could use the two load files and the two
enrolment files. Reporting should be by semester (all five of them in my
view), and also a set of year figures. EFTSUs will add up, headcounts will
not. The semester breakdown reports would not be as detailed as the full
year.

All data issued during the current year should be termed 'preliminary'.

In addition, we also are starting to run into difficulties of internal
reporting whereby the university financial budget uses the calender year.
Allocating $ for the calender year based on EFTSU from the DETYA LS files
(which use a 1/9 to 31/8 year) has worked in the past, but it is starting to
cause problems as fee-paying load increasingly becomes trimester based and
is collected and accounted for on a calender year basis. We are starting to
report fee-paying load on a calender year basis and Commonwealth load on a
DETYA year basis for internal budgetry purposes. Oh, will it ever
end........


Ted Gallop,
Manager, Strategic Information Support.
Office of University Planning.
Curtin University of Technology

Phone 	   08 9266 2246
Facsimile 08 9266 2109
email t.gallop@curtin.edu.au


Conditions of use:
The information contained in this email and any attached files is strictly
private and confidential.  This email should be read by the intended
addressee only.  If the recipient of this message is not the intended
addressee, please re-send it to the sender at Curtin University of
Technology and promptly delete this email and any attachments.

The intended recipient of this email may only use, reproduce, disclose or
distribute the information contained in this email and any attached files
with Curtin's permission.  If you are not the intended addressee, you are
strictly prohibited from using, reproducing, disclosing or distributing the
information contained in this email and any attached files.

Curtin advises that this email and any attached files should be scanned to
detect viruses. Curtin does not represent that this email including any
attachments is free from computer viruses or other faults or defects. Curtin
will not be liable to you or to any other person for any loss or damage
(including direct, consequential or economic loss or damage) however caused
and whether by negligence or otherwise which may result directly or
indirectly from the use of this email or any files attached to this email.
It is the responsibility of the person opening any files attached to this
email to scan those files for computer viruses.


===========================================
Greetings,

At 08:42 AM 3/12/01 +1100, Nick Booth wrote concluding with the following 
comment:

>I think the point is that we really have to start thinking of each half 
>year being a separate collection. Because of the introduction of ASCED and 
>the changed definition of "commencing student", there is a statistical 
>discontinuity between 2000 and 2001. This can provide an opportunity to 
>rethink other aspects of how we present the statistics.


I wholeheartedly support this view. Perhaps the word rethink is more 
charitable than necessary: but seriously a bit of thinking would be a good 
idea. We are dealing with complex issues and we ought always be on our 
guard to avoid the extension of complexity beyond demonstrable necessity.

Ambiguity can be the mother of complexity and this is indeed the case when 
we fall part way between and old annual cycle and the emerging semester 
cycle. Using March 31st figures to describe full-year characteristics was 
always a second best. It will probably always be necessary to describe what 
we mean when we use the term enrolment particularly if we want to use it in 
connection with a calendar year. By total enrolment for a year should we 
mean the greatest number of students enrolled at any time (either first or 
second semester) or the total enrolled during the year (often a 
considerably higher number).

A rethink of the DETYA collection should begin with an analysis of the 
various purposes it serves closely followed by a consideration of the ways 
in which these purposes may be met more efficiently.

A bit of forethought could result in a more rational handling of necessary 
change. While the third submission of the liability status file will mean 
additional work there is much to commend it. In my view it is only a matter 
of time before the advantages of a third submission of the enrolment file 
become evident. The third submission, if it included load, liability 
status, and enrolment files, could become the historical record on which 
future analyses could be based. Of course I would like to see some 
rationalisation of these files.

================================================

At 04:15 pm 30/11/01, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I'm wondering how your institution is intending to report full year 
>enrolment/EFTSU statistics now that we have a second submission Enrolment 
>file.  In particular, how you would deal with students who change details 
>from one semester to the next.

At UTS, we have built a large Powerplay cube called CASHEWS (Course And 
Subject Headcount, EFTSU, and WEFTSU System), which contains data derived 
from the first and second EN, LD, and LS files.

When looking at headcount in this cube, you always have to specify the 
semester required (Summer, Autumn, Winter, Spring) otherwise you get 
multiple counting. For EFTSU, you can look at the whole year and get 
meaningful figures, but students who change their funding source during the 
year (eg international students who get residence) will have their load 
apportioned according to their status in each semester.

I think the point is that we really have to start thinking of each half 
year being a separate collection. Because of the introduction of ASCED and 
the changed definition of "commencing student", there is a statistical 
discontinuity between 2000 and 2001. This can provide an opportunity to 
rethink other aspects of how we present the statistics.

Cheers to all

Nick Booth
Senior Policy and Project Consultant
Technology Systems and Information Unit
University of Technology, Sydney.
Phone + 61 2 9514 2162.   Fax + 61 2 9514 1272.
CRICOS Number: 00099F