The impact of work experience on student outcomes: implications for policy and practice

Education and Employers TaskforceJanuary 23rd 2014Jane Artess and Keith Herrmann

Aims and objectives

To share findings of research into the impact of work experiences on graduate outcomes

To discuss the possible implications for policy and practice

FuturetrackLongitudinal tracking study of the cohort of

applicants to HE in 2006Funded by HECSU, conducted by the

Institute for Employment Research at the University of Warwick under leadership of Professor Kate Purcell.

Four stages – captures student journey from application to post-graduation outcome.

Unprecedented data set

Research questions• What proportions of students participate in internship, sandwich

placements, and work experiences and do these differ by socio-economic group, institution, subject, age, gender, ability and ethnicity?

• What is the impact of work experiences on graduate outcomes and student aspirations?

• Is there a relationship between socio-economic group and subject discipline in sandwich courses and choice of institution?

• Is there a relationship between the level of participation in work/ work experience/placement and subject of study, and institutional type (i.e. whether highest – low tariff institution)?

• In what way does the timing of participation in paid and unpaid work differ by institutional type?

Summary of findings

Paid work Unpaid (voluntary) work Structured work experiences

Those who had undertaken both paid work and structured work experience had the most positive outcomes

Those who had undertaken no work had the least positive outcomes

Pathways into and through HE

Previous Futuretrack findings• Participation in paid work during term time

linked to socio-economic disadvantage and lower entry tariff institutions.

• Work-related activities varied with institutional type and subject.

• Stage 4 reported that integral work placements, vacation internships, and paid work for career experience – led to higher proportion who felt job was very appropriate than those who worked only for money.

Paid work• 33.7% men, 28.9% women and 40% of those aged 26

years+ did no paid work.• Women did more paid work in vacation and term times at

stage 2.• More men in vacation-only work by stage 3.• 50% of Asian respondents did not do paid work at stage 2.• All ethnicities increased paid work by stage 3.• More from routine/manual backgrounds worked both

vacation and term time.

• Those of parents with HE experience – less likely to work both vacation and term-time and more likely to work during vacations-only.

Reasons for doing paid work by institution type - stage 2

Transitions into and out of paid work

The overall pattern of movement into and out of paid work by students suggests that we can distinguish 3 groups of respondents with different relationships to paid work: a group who undertook paid work throughout the period of study (25 per cent), a group who did not undertake paid work while studying (15 per cent) and a group who move into and out of paid work in response to changing pattern of constraints and opportunities (60 per cent).

(BIS, 2013, p 41)

Structured work experience

• Work placements and sandwich years influenced by subject and institution type.

• Placements more likely in Education and Subjects allied to medicine; sandwich more likely in Engineering and Business.

• Least likely to do placement or sandwich at highest tariff but more likely to do vacation internship.

Work related learning by subject at stage 4

Work experiences by institution

Combining work experiences

Results

Proportion of respondents with each outcome separately by type of work undertaken

Type of Work Experience Number of

respondents

Paid work

only

Work-based

learning

Both paid work and

work-based learning

None

Outcomes Good degree 77.0 73.1 81.9 67.3 8386 Self-confidence 82.5 84.6 85.7 78.1 8389 Unemployment 9.2 7.7 6.1 14.9 8384 Graduate job 36.2 59.4 55.2 33.6 6057 Wage1 19442.3 22054.7 23581.6 18343.6 6278 1 the figures for the wage give the mean wage

Work experiences

Quality : ASET guide

Accredited employability modules at Ulster

•2,000 students at Ulster go on placement every year.

•200 courses offer exemptions or carry professional accreditation.

•Career Development Centre - suite of accredited employability modules

Professional training at Surrey

•Work placements embedded in degree programmes.

•1,000 employer partners.

•Employability skills supported before, during and after placement.

In-house work placements at Essex

•Frontrunners scheme offers in-house work experience on campus.

•Short placements, range from 10-15 hours a week.

•Flexible working to accommodate exams.

Business-facing at Hertfordshire

•Partnering with SMEs part of institution’s DNA.

•Careers and Placement Service has dedicated central SME engagement team.

•Active relationships with several thousand SMEs offer work-related learning and placements

Student leadership skills at Manchester

•Careers and Employability Division run the Manchester Leadership Programme.

•Combine academic modules with 20-60 hours of volunteering.

•Over 1,200 students involved in local organisations.

Modes of university-business interaction

Practice and policy - questions?

• Quality work placements in all courses?• How to unlock benefits of university-

business collaboration?• Should there be a uniform curriculum model

for employability?• Further research on the impact of different

forms of work-related activities?

Thank you

Contact

Jane Artess on j.artess@prospects.ac.uk

or telephone 0161 277 5208

Keith Herrmann on kherrmann@me.com

or telephone 07900 697544