New HEPI report investigates whether the school and college curriculum prepares students for university

On Thursday 13 February, HEPI will publish One Step Beyond: How the school and college curriculum in England can prepare young people for higher education by Josh Freeman. Based on a new survey of 1,105 university students conducted by Savanta, the report responds to the Curriculum and Assessment Review chaired by Professor Becky Francis by considering how well the curriculum prepares young people for higher education.

Key findings:

• Most students found the curriculum prepared them well (83% said ‘Very well' or ‘Quite well' versus just 14% who said they were ‘Quite poorly' or ‘Very poorly' prepared) but only 38% agreed they were ‘ready for life and ready for work'.
• More than three-fifths of students (63%) want more vocational skills in the curriculum, and half want more digital/IT skills (52%) and oracy (speaking) skills (49%).
• Most students are opposed to compulsory English and Maths to 18 (73% and 70% respectively). A third of students (34%) think studying four or five A levels or BTECs would give them ‘greater fulfilment and satisfaction' than studying two or three, which was the most popular option supported by 50% of students.
• Two-fifths of students (39%) think there are too many assessments. About half (48%) think the number of assessments is about right and 10% think there are not enough. A sizeable minority, particularly women and those with special educational needs (SEN), do not feel assessments prepared them well for higher education or allowed them to fulfil their potential.
• Nearly three-fifths of students (59%) want more education on finances and budgeting, and 44% want more education on career pathways. Half (51%) wish they had had the opportunity to ‘learn more life skills'.
• Nearly half of students (47%) feel well prepared for sex and relationships in higher education, compared with just 27% who felt well prepared in 2021. Just over a quarter (28%) do not feel well prepared.
• The majority of students (58%) want PSHE to be compulsory to 18. About a third (36%) say it should not be compulsory.
• More than two-fifths of students (41%) wish they had taken different subjects (A levels, BTECs or equivalent) at 16, including more than one-third of students who took A levels.
• Half of students (49%) support the current system where students are encouraged to take a foreign language at GCSE, with a quarter (25%) saying languages should be compulsory and a further quarter (24%) saying they should be purely optional. A number of students wanted the opportunity to learn other languages, such as sign language.

The report recommends:

• A greater focus on ensuring all young people reach minimum standards in Maths and English, alongside a greater push for digital, oracy and critical thinking skills;
• A renewed focus on creative subjects, such as by including creative subject in the English Baccalaureate;
• A broader curriculum at 16-18, with students able to take four or five subjects rather than just three;
• BTECs should not be defunded unless there is a clear alternative vocational route into higher education;
• The number of, and amount of content in, assessments should be reduced;
• Students should be given more education on financial planning, but PSHE cannot become the dumping ground for content which does not fit anywhere else;
• Every young person should get a pathways mentor guarantee, a one-to-one conversation with an expert in careers pathways to advise them on the best post-16 choices.

Josh Freeman, Policy Manager at HEPI and author of the report, said:

‘The Curriculum Review panel should recommend keeping the bits of the system that work well and jettisoning those that don't. It is a great success that our schools and colleges prepare many young people so well for higher education. Policymakers should think very carefully before making any changes that put this preparation at risk.

‘But other parts of the system punch below their weight and should be reformed. It is absurd that the decisions students make at 15 – sometimes with little or no advice and guidance – determine the degree courses and often the careers available to them. One-to-one mentorship and more breadth of A level and BTEC courses would stop students from being trapped by the decisions they made as teenagers.

‘The report also proposes several other practical recommendations. It is time to rebalance the GCSE curriculum back towards creative subjects which are sadly neglected in the current system. The volume of assessments is overwhelming teachers, never mind pupils, so the number of these must be cut down. And more space might be given to the things students feel are lacking, like financial education and budgeting.'

Professor Jackie Potter, Dean of Academic Innovation at the University of Chester, said:

‘HEPI's report by Josh Freeman is a timely reminder of how student participation and success at university is intertwined with their experiences as pupils in school and college education.

‘The report shares students' views on their preparedness for university and identifies aspects they value in the school and college curriculum as well as aspects they would change. The report highlights both practical and academic features and the need for choice between vocational courses and broader-based academic subjects. 

‘The recommendations in this report offer hope to many small and specialist and broad-based universities by calling for a rebalancing of creative subjects in the GCSE curriculum and recognising the need for personalised career support for teenagers, when they are making decisions about the subjects and courses they want to pursue at 16.'

Notes for editors

1. This report is based on the findings of a poll of 1,105 full-time undergraduate students domiciled in England. The fieldwork was conducted in November and December 2024. The sample was weighted in line with population sizes by gender, institution type and year of study. It includes only students currently in higher education, so it will not be representative of the views of those who did not go to university.