The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) will publish an
important new report, "Cracks in our foundations: Evaluating
foundation years as a tool for access and success", by HEPI
Policy Manager Josh Freeman.
Foundation years are an additional year of study at the beginning
of a higher education course designed to prepare students for
degree-level study. Proponents say they can boost access, by
giving students an extra year of study to catch up with their
peers. Critics, including in the Department for Education (DfE),
argue many are low-quality and not necessary for students. In
July 2023, the DfE cut the maximum fees for some courses from
£9,250 to £5,760.
This report argues there is significant room for improvement,
both in the way higher education institutions use foundation
years and in how Government has responded to them.
Key findings:
-
There has been an explosive eightfold increase in
foundation year enrolment in a decade. While only
8,500 took foundation years in 2011/12, over 69,000 students
did so in 2021/22.
-
Business and Management dominate foundation year
studies, accounting for over half (51%) of enrolments.
By contrast, only 13% of undergraduates study Business courses.
-
Foundation years excel in providing access to higher
education. Nearly 30% of students possess no prior
qualifications and 64% are mature students.
-
However, a large majority (73%) of foundation year
students study at low-tariff institutions, and just 4% study at
high-tariff institutions.
-
Only 74% of foundation year students proceed directly
to degree-level study or qualify: implying a drop-out rate of
more than a quarter (26%). By comparison, 91% of
full-time undergraduates proceed, implying a drop-out rate of
only 9%.
-
Some institutions may be using foundation years to
inflate their tariff scores artificially. However, the
report finds no evidence of institutions pressuring students to
take foundation years.
- Government policy to address the problem is likely to be
ineffective and may cause more problems than it resolves.
The crackdown explicitly targeted Business courses, but
these are the only classroom-based foundation years which could
still be economically viable, while courses in Science,
Technology and Engineering may often be loss-making.
We recommend that:
-
The cut in the maximum fee for classroom-based courses
should not be introduced and all courses should be
able to charge the same maximum fee.
-
Student finance should be withdrawn from foundation
year courses which do not deliver excellent outcomes for
students.
-
High-tariff institutions should consider the
possibilities for foundation year courses to increase
access.
We also investigate so-called ‘international foundation years’.
These were heavily criticised by the
Sunday Times for allegedly admitting students with
lower grades than home students. We find that:
-
In 2020/21, no more than 14% of students on integrated
foundation years were international students.
- A clear majority of international students (60%) study in
London and the East of England. 44% of them studied
Business.
-
At 71%, the proportion continuing in higher education
or qualifying was even lower than for home students.
- But these findings only relate to ‘integrated’ international
foundation years; we have little data on foundation year courses
which are not associated with a full degree.
Josh Freeman, Policy Manager at HEPI and author of the
report, said:
In the blink of an eye, and without proper scrutiny,
foundation year courses have become extraordinarily popular. Many
of these courses are excellent, giving opportunities to students
with incredible potential but need more support to succeed in
higher education. But many others are not doing justice to
students, who, despite giving significant money, time and energy,
are not getting the degree they were promised.
The Government also bears some responsibility. Its policy of
slashing fees for Business and Humanities courses is simplistic
and might make quality worse. Other courses, including STEM
courses, are at serious risk of being financially unviable
because universities are limited in what they can charge.
It's time for everyone to wake up. Universities shouldn’t be
running these courses unless they can be confident they can
properly support every single student. And the Office for
Students should make a serious attempt to distinguish excellent
foundation year courses from those which fail to meet quality
standards.
