The impact of work
experience on student
outcomes: implications for
policy and practice
Education and Employers Taskforce
January 23rd 2014
Jane 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
Futuretrack
Longitudinal tracking study of the cohort of
applicants to HE in 2006
Funded 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 socioeconomic 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
Number of
respondents
Type of Work Experience
Paid work
only
Outcomes
Good degree
Self-confidence
Unemployment
Graduate job
Wage1
1
77.0
82.5
9.2
36.2
19442.3
Both paid
Workwork and
based
work-based
learning
learning
73.1
84.6
7.7
59.4
22054.7
the figures for the wage give the mean wage
81.9
85.7
6.1
55.2
23581.6
None
67.3
78.1
14.9
33.6
18343.6
8386
8389
8384
6057
6278
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 universitybusiness 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 [email protected]
or telephone 0161 277 5208
Keith Herrmann on [email protected]
or telephone 07900 697544