Delia
Notes deriving from work on Workshop information
I attach a file (Workshop-2008-06-02.doc ) which contains all the notes made
at the workshop on 2nd June. These include those made on the white boards,
the best practice copies and on other sheets of loose paper. It is all typed up,
but has not been tidied up, so it is all in the sequence and words originally
used by the groups.
I have worked through this information doing two things:
Firstly, I have looked at the morning’s Entry Profile work and pulled out some
themes and issues which either came up repeatedly or were stressed in some
way by one group.
Secondly, I have looked at the whole file and tried to list additional data or
facilities that participants have specifically asked for. Initially, I divided data
and facilities into two separate sections as I thought they would lead to
different results, but found the facilities section much the more rewarding of
the two when I got down to taking a closer look. In each list, I have tried,
where possible, to be aware of similarities between items and group similar
things together.
I have put the data I created in this way at the end of this document.
I think it is informative to note that the Entry Profile work did not throw up any
significant additional data requests except for feedback on what the applicants
thought of the information they had been given.
From the facilities required section, I have pulled together 4 possible areas
which I think might warrant further work, these are:
4 possible areas for further work:
1. EP updating issues
– EP data should only be provided once
– a better way to update EPs
– schedule for updating triggers/reminders
- multiple selection for bulk updating
- year set in weblink should be carried forward
2. Brand consistency and data ownership
3. Help for applicants filling in forms
4. Feedback / stats / analytics
I’m told PortisHEad have a demonstrator for helping applicants fill in forms, so
this is probably not the route for DELIA to take. I therefore suggest that we try
to come up with some kind of mechanism that will help with the updating of
Entry Profiles as our demonstrator for Delia. An alternative would be to look
at the stats / feedback / analytics area.
Themes and Issues regarding Entry Profiles

Resources issues – money – manpower – time.
o Eliminate duplication of effort.
o Do not make it more difficult for staff in schools either.

Internal HEI communication / politics / motivational issues
o Is EP a marketing or an admissions tool? Title needs to
indicate what it is.

Some kind of feedback system to tell HEIs what students think of their
entry profiles and how they use them.
o Vote button – how useful?
o Box for comments.

Stats –
o How many look at EPs.
o Web analytics.
o Modelling and evaluation – are these criteria delivering a strong
match between the applicant and the course?

Data exchange should be improved so you are only providing the
information once.
o Information should be kept in one place (strong pref - controlled
by HEI) and updated only there. Copies of the updated data
should be available from there on line. This is different to reinputting to send to UCAS and/or updating on UCAS system.
[ONE place, currently multiple or links].
o Currently can’t link to UCAS EPs from HEI web sites.

Constant updating is problematic
o Netupdate not user friendly.
o Scheduling for updating confusing both within HEI and at UCAS.
Reminder system.

Must have more functionality than own websites
o Comparisons between and within HEIs
o Switch selling?
o Link on Apply to EP – populate fields
o Should not be compulsory just because technology is there

Tension between
a) EP seen as desirable person spec and
b) Fear of identikit students.
o Needs something to bring out the individual – not formulaic.
o Throw it wide, not narrow it down.
o Link to interest questionnaires?

If EPs create similarities of PS –> plagiarism?
o Verification

Separate PS for each course.

Tension between needs of standard, age 19, A level UK student and
needs of other kinds of students.
o EP as a source of info might disadvantage students coming from
FE and other non-standard students


Less guidance.

Less options for extracurricular activities?
Continuity of tone and presentation – guidelines help; standard
headings help.
Facilities requests:

Schedule for updating with triggers / reminders

Year set in weblink should be carried forward to EP and shouldn’t need
to be entered again.

A better way of updating EPs

Data exchange must be improved so that you are only providing the
information once

Facilities to supply specific info to international students

Multiple selection for bulk updating

Template questions to admissions tutors updated annually

For selecting courses: Course specific personal statements

Some way to get a consistent style or brand

Link to UCAS EPs from own website

Help, information, or drop down lists or some other tool, to help foreign,
mature and FE students, without guidance levels afforded to school
leavers, to fill in the forms completely and correctly

Overseas referees need support

Guidelines for students so they can categorise themselves properly

Better prompts (help, information or dropdowns) for entering data for
qualifications and references

A way to avoid incompletely filled in application forms from overseas
students

Mandatory fields – prompt if not filled in

Facility to distinguish between blanks left because the answer is
‘nothing’, ‘no’ or ‘none’ and those which have just not been filled in.

More advice for overseas students on how to fill in forms and on
references

Vote button or box for comments on how useful EP was to them
(students)

Tracking – what contribution did each intervention make?

Spell checker

In PQA environment – UCAS to validate qualifications

Common standards for qualifications data

Ability to place a ‘stop’ in weblink on applicants already rejected

After applicant is accepted it would be good to be able to gather extra
information in Track – extra support, transport, clothing, CRB reminder,
problems / needs etc. At the same time we could tell them about
finance issues, extra costs etc.

CRB checks - applicant or UCAS prepared, not by each HEI

Fee status questionnaire

Possibility to attach transcripts / documents to application
Purposes they might use these facilities for:

Comparison of unis and courses

Convincing senior management that EPs are a good thing

Convincing staff in Admissions or marketing who are doing work on
EPs that they are not boringly pointless

Quality assurance

Use information given to or got from UCAS for statutory returns –
collect once, use many times.
How they might use them:

Speed up application processing

Make more sensible conditional offers
Data requests:

Information on UCAS planned developments especially IT
requirements

Clear contractual timetable.

Clearing: All UCAS info immediately – sometimes held up if applicant
was UF or CF and has not yet been released

Text + URL for each header

Evidence – stats – for usefulness / effectiveness of EPs

Information on where EP should sit in institution – marketing,
recruitment, admissions… Clarification – is EP a marketing tool?

PQA – UCAS have to validate the qualifications

Authentication / validation of info in PS (references?)

Mitigating circumstances – what are they and have they already been
taken into account by awarding body?

Is candidate appealing grades?

How long has referee known applicant and in what capacity

What IAG have applicants had?

Accuracy of school’s ability to predict grades

School performance data, for borderline students and for selecting
courses.

Number of resits

HIPs for applicant

Mature students – more info on WP, disabilities, criminal convictions

For selecting courses:
o Position in family (first child?)
o Locality
o Pre-entry experience of HE
o Work experience / employment
o Career exploration

For students living abroad:
o List of subjects studied and at what levels (NB not just courses
taken) – e.g. components of diploma
o Transcripts e.g. NARIC
o Date they get their results
o Level of English
o Quality of UK foundation course if they are enrolled on one
o Marking system for courses in their country – what does ‘3’
mean?
o How likely are they to turn up?

Already got a sponsor?

Already applied for a visa?

Quality of agents?
o E-portfolio