[Unistats] Full Year Enrolment Statistics

[Allen Muscio]

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.

For those with the persistence to continue I provide and example of the 
extension of complexity beyond demonstrable necessity:

Note on Liability and Payments
There are three elements in the DETYA Collection that report on liability 
and payments in the LS file. They form the basis of the liabilities and 
payments reported in the HECS Due file. While the original intention may 
have been different what is currently reported under E391 is a liability 
rather than a fee. It is the fee-paying student equivalent of the E384 for 
HECS liable students. The two should be reported in the one element. E381 
is the amount paid by HECS liable students. It is the logical location for 
the amount paid by PELS students which are the direct counterpart of he 
HECS 10 Part-Payment. The decision to report PELS liability under E391 
instead of under E384 where it could (indeed should) be reported, and the 
reporting of PELS amount deferred under E384 instead of reporting the PELS 
amount paid under E381 is the extension of complexity beyond demonstrable 
necessity. The refusal to draw back and make the necessary corrections 
suggest the perpetrators would rather be a long way down wrong track than a 
little way along the right track.

Cheers,

Allen