A new Course Survival Probability app ranks institutions in terms of a range of factors, including student retention and completion – prompting fresh questions about the way institutional performance is measured – and rewarded in Australia.
The tool, developed by long-term higher education data analyst Jason Ensor, provides publicly-available data in a user-friendly package that could be used by careers advisers and prospective students to understand the level of risk of not finishing their degree based on the past performance of institutions.
The tool is fascinating. The data is publicly available, but from multiple sources, and it highlights the challenges for students and the public to gain insights into university performance.
But the tool is also incredibly useful in exposing questions around retention.
Essentially: lower status universities and TAFEs attract students who are less academically capable and/or equipped to succeed, while higher status universities hoover up students who are already geared to succeed. Is it really a measure of success for a sandstone university to shepherd a cohort of well-resourced, already well-educated students through to course completion, compared to other lower-status universities that need to invest more to support students through the education process?
As the proposed ATEC sets up to establish new funding arrangements and compacts with each institution based on performance, there has been an acceptance that retention is a key performance metric – which will determine how much money each uni gets. Should the government take money away from a university struggling with retention, or provide more, in recognition of the challenge?
Given the Government has listed retention as a success metric, it makes sense that prospective students may seek to increase their chances of completion choosing an institution with a higher success rate – which could mean a decline in student enrolment compounds government penalties for low retention.
Dr Ensor developed the Course Survival Probability app after seeing his son go through year 12 last year.
“Prestige is tied to ATAR, but at the same time, before ATARs are released, universities send out thousands of offers. There is so much stress and anxiety about getting into a degree program, that I wanted to provide more information about pathways,” he said.
The information provided in the app is based on research online – trawling through Reddit forums and other online gathering spaces for students, and looking at the questions students were asking.
There are tabs on equity, discipline-specific ratings and other information on sector analysis, but the ranking is likely to provoke most discussion around retention rates and risk. For example at the University of Sydney all six equity groups have retention rates at or above the national average, while at Charles Sturt University just one group is at or above the national average.
Lets be clear here: the app is not the problem. The fact that Dr Ensor has been able to create it in a matter of weeks demonstrates the breadth of the gap in useful information for students, and a lack of conversation or effort in re-shaping student demand through addressing information deficits. The challenges for the public in accessing and understanding tertiary institution performance data until now has meant that there have been too few questions about the measures used.
Will institutions with poor retention have to decide to tighten entrance criteria, so they only take in students more likely to succeed, or will needs-based funding offer a higher per-student fee which makes it worth the risk of taking on students who need more support to complete their course?
In a report on retention last year, The Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success (ACSES) noted that “Student retention rates are a key indicator of both student success and institutional performance within Australian higher education.” The report noted that retention is significantly lower for low SES, Indigenous, regional and remote and disabled students.
What does retention funding mean for the Accord’s targets, given the need to usher around a million additional students – many of whom will have higher support needs to succeed – into the tertiary system over the next 23 years?
Getting the balance right on retention policy is going to be critical this year as the Government seeks to restructure funding for the sector. Understanding what retention means, deeper than relying on blanket cohort or institution-based metrics and sharing best-practice to get improved results is vital to the future of the sector.