Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE MERIT OF SANDWICH DEGREES IN COMPARISON WITH POST GRADUATE
CONVERSION COURSES
Michael Jayne
School of Art Design and Built Environment
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham
NG1 4BU
Tele: 0115 848 2173
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
This paper considers the relative merits of sandwich undergraduate education compared with
postgraduate conversion education in order to see whether the experiential learning in a formal
placement year correlates, in any way, with the differential learning requirements of a Masters
degree. It includes new primary data obtained from students on the final year of their RICS
accredited BSc Honours Degrees concerning how they believe their placement experience has
influenced their subsequent educational experience. It comes to the conclusion that a valid
placement can go some way towards meeting the requirements of a Master’s degree as expressed
by the Quality Assurance Agency in Higher Education generic benchmarks.
Keywords: sandwich students, Masters students, role of placement year in meeting Master’s
generic benchmark statements
1. Background
In the UK, a first degree is the predominant qualification route in the Built Environment sector.
Recent years have seen an apparent shift towards postgraduate entry, especially conversion
courses. This may have been facilitated by the Government’s drive to increase participation in
University education which may have resulted in increased numbers of graduates with non
cognate, non vocational first degrees. Some employers, for example in the real estate sector,
also appear to have been pro active in employing post graduates, particularly from RICS
accredited courses.
The issues raised by this paper concern the relative merits of these entry routes; are they
producing distinctly different property professionals? How does a graduate from a degree
without a sandwich year differ from one with a sandwich year or a Master's degree? Does the
sandwich degree merely endow a student with work experience or could it be that it provides a
learning experience which moves some way towards satisfying some of the added value
academic qualities of a Master’s qualification?
2. The Changing Nature of Higher Education
UK higher education has seen many changes in recent years. This has been influenced by the
Government’s desire for more students to enter higher education and the increasing shift towards
self funding. This has resulted in the number of UK students achieving first class or upper-
second class honours degrees increasing by 20 per cent over the six years to 2001-2.(Sastry
2004).
Alongside the growth in first degrees there has been a substantial growth in postgraduate
education, although the reasons for this growth may not be as self-evident as with undergraduate
education.
“Postgraduate education is the fastest growing sector in higher education. There has been a
21 per cent growth in new entrants over the last seven years. There are now nearly 500,000
Postgraduate students in UK universities, nearly a fifth of all students.”
(Sastry 2004)
This growth has been dramatic and is clearly seen in table 1. The demand for Postgraduate
education rose by 21% from 1995/6 to 2002/03. The growth for Professional qualifications
overall was 2% but within the figures, growth for taught Master’s courses generally, grew by
42%. According to Sastry, post graduate student numbers rose fastest in the ‘new universities
and colleges’, being 65% for the same period covered by Table 1. One might question whether
such growth is sustainable.
3. Postgraduate Student Characteristics
According to Sastry, students studying for research degrees are more likely to have achieved a
first-class degree than other graduates. He goes on to point out that, “...those studying for taught
postgraduate qualifications by contrast have a similar profile to the general graduate population
and he then suggests that, “...the possession of a taught postgraduate qualification is a poor
indicator as to general ability....” This would appear to contradict some of the stated reasons for
requiring post graduate entry to the profession but table 2 would appear to support the assertion
that there is something special about postgraduate students as their salaries, six months after
qualification, are almost 18% higher than even those for holders of first class honours degrees.
Similarly, Table 3 shows a much higher level of postgraduate students as having professional
occupations.
However, as Sastry (2004) points out, this may be in part due to the fact that,
...postgraduate qualifications are strongly associated with entry into professional
occupations - even though the proportion of postgraduates studying for specifically
professional qualifications is tiny (3 per cent of 2002-3 entrants).
TABLE 1: First Year Postgraduates in UK Higher Education Institutions (2002-3) Number of
students Absolute increase 1995-6 to 2002-03
Percentage change 1995-6 to 2002-03
Professional qualifications 7 805 118 2 Post Grad Diplomas and certificates (not PGCE)
40 635 -8964 -18
PGCE 28 355 5870 26 Taught Masters 118 700 42 Masters by research 10 080 -813 -7 Doctorate by research 16 325 -488 -3 All Other Post Grad 14 325 10245 251TP PT(a) Total 236 230 41148 21 (a) TP1PT This category includes postgraduate bachelor’s degrees (e.g. BLitt) and doctorates not mainly examined by research. (Source: reanalysis of data commissioned by HEPI for HESA in Sastry 2004.)
TABLE 2: Earning Prospects Mean salary of those in full-time
employment six months after graduation
Postgraduate premium (%)
Postgraduate qualifiers
20 951 0
All first degrees 16 393 28First class honours 17 756 18Upper second 15 981 31Lower second 15 219 38Third class honours 15 180 38Unclassified PT 23 660 -11(Source: reanalysis of data commissioned by HEPI for HESA in Sastry 2004.)
TABLE 3: Professional Employment: Postgraduate and First Degree Qualifiers Obtaining Employment Six Months After Graduation 2001-2 All occupations Professional occupations
(percentage of all occupations in brackets)
Postgraduate 28755 21845 (76)
First degree 115410 28685 (25)
Postgraduate (excl teacher training) 13410 6785 (51)
First degree (excl teacher training) 108560 22095 (20)
(Source: Sastry 2004)
In 2001-02, 25 per cent of first degree graduates in employment six months after graduation were
classified as being in professional occupations. The equivalent figure for postgraduates was 76
per cent. ...even if undergraduate and postgraduate teacher training are removed from the
analysis, the contrast between postgraduate and first degree qualifiers is still striking. (Sastry
2004)
4. Future Demand
HEPI has calculated, based upon growth in undergraduate demand expected between 2002-03
and 2010-11 in England, that there could be up to 50,000 more postgraduate students in higher
education by that date. (Sastry 2004) Furthermore, as Sastry points out, “…postgraduate
qualification may become the norm in occupations where this has not previously been the case,
even where no formal professional accreditation is involved.” This would support an assertion
that demand for postgraduate education will increase. The counter view is that because of the
delay between graduating and entering postgraduate education, there ‘may be some time before
the full impact of increases in the undergraduate population on the postgraduate population is
felt. (Sastry 2004). However, due to the increased levels of student debt it is possible that new
graduates will not be willing to proceed to further post graduate study.
5. Undergraduate Sandwich Degree Education versus Post Graduate Education
Against the background of increasing demand by employers for post graduate students and
graduates for post graduate courses, it seems worthwhile to consider the qualities of the
established sandwich degree. Table 4 sets out the traditional learning routes for standard full
time, sandwich and non cognate Master’s routes to qualification. In standard full time and post
graduate degrees, work experience is normally encountered after graduation only. With the part
time postgraduate route work experience may be attained during the learning process. This is
also true for part time undergraduate courses. However, with the traditional (often referred to as
a ‘thick’) sandwich route, work experience is usually encountered after two years of full time
study and before the final year. This would normally be expected to enable the student to use,
and to develop a greater appreciation of, the skills acquired during their two years of full time
TABLE 4: Current Undergraduate and Postgraduate Programme Formats
Year Standard Full time Degree Activity
1 Level 1
2 Level 2
3 Level 3
Graduate learning
4 APC year 1
5 APC year 2
Work experience
Year Standard Sandwich Degree Activity
1 Level 1
2 Level 2
Graduate learning
3 Placement APC year 1 (work experience)
4 Level 3** Graduate learning
5 APC year 1 Work experience
** Placement (work) experience taken before final year of taught education
Year Non Cognate Masters Full time Activity
1 Level 1
2 Level 2
3 Level 3
Graduate learning
4 Masters** Post graduate learning
5 APC year 1
6 APC year 2
Work experience
** Placement (work) experience taken as a totality after final year of taught education
Year Non Cognate Masters Part time Activity
1 Level 1
2 Level 2
3 Level 3
Graduate learning
4 Masters year 1
5 Masters year 2** APC year 1
Post graduate
learning Work experience
6 APC year 2 Work experience
** Placement (work) experience taken during final years of taught education
study, to some extent. Similarly, a placement year would be expected to inform the final year of
study, in the sense that students would have a contextual reference point and a collective
anecdotal experience shared within the cohort. It could also be the case that traditional sandwich
course education recognises a need to lift a student’s competence to a point where they can be
useful to employers after 2 years study, whereas no such pressures exist for full time courses.
Allen and Williams (2005) were of the opinion that, “Higher education institutions who
successfully engage with industry potentially offer students the opportunity to be both more
knowledgeable and better prepared when they enter the workplace and in the process deliver
productivity benefits to their employers.” However, the placement learning experience should be
more than simply work experience in that it should be structured in some form, even if that form
is simply based around the RICS Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) and assessed as
being valid by the employer and the University placement visitor. The APC offers a work
experience related set of targets, for students and employers. It is also a motivator for employers
to use students effectively and it can thus be regarded as a form of quality assurance for the
learning experience.
The fact that placements should be more than student work experience is supported by the QAA
(2001), who state that,
Where placement learning is an intended part of a programme of study, institutions should
ensure that:
• Their responsibilities for placement learning are clearly defined;
• The Intended learning outcomes contribute to the overall aims of the programme; and
• Any assessment of placement learning is part of a coherent assessment strategy
6. Learning Outcomes
In the UK, the differential generic learning outcomes as and between an honours degree and a
Master’s degree have been established by The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
These are set out in Table 5 alongside each other. Their relative order has been changed to
facilitate comparison. Particular aspects have been highlighted where there is an apparent
difference in anticipated outcome.
QAA also publish benchmark statements for ‘Building and Surveying’, but there do not appear
to be any comparable sector specific master’s benchmark statement. Consequently, the subject
specific benchmark statements for Business and Management were considered as the most
appropriate proxy for comparison, although there appropriateness is debatable.
An analysis of these showed that, as would be expected, the degree subject benchmark
statements are very subject specific. By comparison, the Business Management benchmark
statements appear to be more generic in style, although this could be an attribute of the nature of
business education. Notwithstanding this, the benchmark statements suggest that postgraduate
education can be considered as a development in the depth and nature of knowledge acquisition
skills, rather than subject breadth. This reflects the generic benchmark statements which tend to
highlight the higher intellectual skill and which can easily be tracked back to the generic skills.
In the absence of subject specific benchmark statements, the generic statements in Table 5 have
been used as a metric to examine whether the sandwich degree performs a function in educating
students above and beyond the normal graduate benchmarks towards attaining Master’s
benchmark standard.
7. Research
In order to find out how effective, if at all, the placement learning experience had been in
enhancing undergraduate education, towards postgraduate education, sandwich students on the
final year of their honours degree in ‘Real Estate Management’, ‘Building Surveying’ and
‘Planning and Property Development’ were invited to complete an on-line questionnaire. In
order to ascertain how their placement year had affected their subsequent educational experience,
they were presented with a series of statements and asked to rank how strongly they agreed with
them using a five point Likert scale.
TABLE 5: Undergraduate and Postgraduate Descriptors Descriptor for a qualification at Honours Masters Honours degrees are awarded to
students who have demonstrated:
Masters degrees are awarded to students who
have demonstrated:
A
A systematic understanding of key
aspects of their field of study,
including acquisition of coherent and
detailed knowledge, at least some of
which is at or informed by, the
forefront of defined aspects of a
discipline;
A systematic understanding of knowledge, and a
critical awareness of current problems and/or
new insights, much of which is at, or informed
by, the forefront of their academic discipline,
field of study, or area of professional practice;
B
an ability to deploy accurately
established techniques of analysis and
enquiry within a discipline;
a comprehensive understanding of techniques
applicable to their own research or advanced
scholarship;
C
conceptual understanding that enables
the student:
" to devise and sustain arguments,
and/or to solve problems, using ideas
and techniques, some of which are at
the forefront of a discipline; and
" to describe and comment upon
particular aspects of current research,
or equivalent advanced scholarship, in
the discipline;
conceptual understanding that enables the
student:
" to evaluate critically current research and
advanced scholarship in the discipline;
and
" to evaluate methodologies and develop
critiques of them and, where appropriate, to
propose new hypotheses
D
The ability to manage their own
learning and to make use of scholarly
reviews and primary sources (e.g.
refereed research articles and/or original
materials appropriate to the discipline).
originality in the application of knowledge,
together with a practical understanding of
how established techniques of research and
enquiry are used to create and interpret
knowledge in the discipline
Typically, holders of the qualification Typically, holders of the qualification will be
E
will be able to:
apply the methods and techniques that
they have learned to review,
consolidate, extend and apply their
knowledge and understanding, and to
initiate and carry out projects;
able to:
deal with complex issues both systematically
and creatively, make sound judgements in the
absence of complete data, and communicate
their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-
specialist audiences
F
critically evaluate arguments,
assumptions, abstract concepts and data
(that may be incomplete), to make
judgements, and to frame appropriate
questions to achieve a solution - or
identify a range of solutions - to a
problem;
demonstrate self-direction and originality in
tackling and solving problems, and act
autonomously in planning and implementing
tasks at a professional or equivalent level;
G
communicate information, ideas,
problems, and solutions to both
specialist and non-specialist audiences
and will have:
continue to advance their knowledge and
understanding, and to develop new skills to a
high level;
and will have:
H
the qualities and transferable skills
necessary for employment requiring:
" the exercise of initiative and personal
responsibility;
" decision-making in complex and
unpredictable contexts; and
“The learning ability needed to
undertake appropriate further training of
a professional or equivalent nature.
the qualities and transferable skills necessary for
employment requiring:
" the exercise of initiative and personal
responsibility;
" decision-making in complex and unpredictable
situations; and
“The independent learning ability required for
continuing professional development.
The statements were derived from Master's subject benchmark statements where they had been
identified as differentiating themselves above and beyond the degree standards, as highlighted in
bold in table 5. The aspects covered in this highlighted area were broken down into smaller
statements that were believed to express the same sentiment, but were easier for students to
understand than the original phraseology. For example, "Deal with complex issue both
systematically and creatively, make sound judgements in the absence of complete data and
communicate ... conclusions clearly to specialist and non specialist audiences”, was broken down
into several individual statements: "I did not always have the data I needed, but I was still able
to make a judgment" and "I communicated my conclusions to other
professionals/specialists/public/non professionals”.
Students were then emailed a link to an on-line questionnaire at the start of their Easter break.
The on-line facility was anonymous in use and efficient. It is the author's experience that on-line
questionnaires can result in a poor response rate, especially where the respondent is anonymous.
However, it was believed that as the respondents were students, they might be expected to be
interested in responding. Consequently, an on-line questionnaire would have some degree of
success. The timing of the email request was deliberate as it would mean that students had
largely completed their final year studies and so should be able to have a more holistic and
considered view of their learning experiences. They were also engaged in writing up their
dissertations and so should be better able to respond to the statements on research. Unfortunately,
one disadvantage was that Easter provided the distractions of a holiday, absence from the
student's university email, pressures to complete outstanding coursework and the need to
complete and write up their dissertations for the first day back after the break. Emailing when
the students had just returned from Easter was considered, as it might have produced a better
response rate, but this would have made it difficult to meet the submission deadline for this
conference. In the event, thirty six completed questionnaires were returned and subsequently
analysed.
As mentioned, questions were primarily based on the differential learning aspects between the
benchmark statements of the degree versus Master’s benchmark statements, discussed earlier in
this paper. Students were asked to assess how strongly they agreed with a statement linked to one
of the Master’s benchmark statements, using a 5 point Likert scale (1 strongly agree, 5 strongly
disagree). The questions were set within the following sections to help place them into context
for the student:
• About your placement
• How you feel about the placement
• How you think the placement has influenced you
• Things you had to do in your placement, and
• Things you learned on your placement.
This placed the questions in a logical order to aid the students in their responses but it did not
reflect the order of the aspects as set out in Table 5. Consequently, the responses had to be later
reclassified into the eight sections, A to H, after the categories identified in Table 5.
8. Results
The results were analysed in terms of mean and standard deviation to determine the strength of
agreement with each statement. The mean was used to assess the strength of agreement with the
statement and the standard deviation to assess the coherence/divergence of that agreement within
the sample.
The first section was entitled, about your Placement and how you feel about the placement.
This section was designed to draw respondents into, and familiarise them with, the questionnaire.
Questions covered a range of issues from whether the student enjoyed their placement to whether
they thought the placement would help them get a job. While most of these individual aspects
are not relevant for analysis in terms of the main purpose of this paper, it is worth reporting there
was very strong support from students for the fact that placements were enjoyable and helped
with obtaining employment. Students were also asked whether the placement had helped them
get more from their final year studies. This produced a mean of 2.114 and a standard deviation
of 1.132, evidencing support for this statement.
SECTION A: …knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights,
much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study, or
area of professional practice
Three statements were devised to test this section. Question 8 asked whether the placement had
helped the student to be more aware of current professional problems. This produced a mean of
2.22 suggesting some support and a standard deviation of 1.070, suggesting broad agreement
across the students. Question 9 asked whether the placement had helped the student to be more
critically aware of current professional problems. This was less strongly, but still supported by a
mean of 2.3888 and a standard deviation of 0.903. Question 36 asked whether students had
learned to become more questioning and critical. A mean 1.917 and a standard deviation 0.996
suggested that they had learned how to find out information themselves.
SECTION B: a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research
or advanced scholarship;
Question 10 sought to find whether the placement had helped students gain a more
comprehensive understanding of their subject than they would have done without it. This was
strongly supported (mean 1.9722) with modest divergence of views (standard deviation 1.1354)
SECTION C: to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline;
And “to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to
propose new hypotheses
It was difficult to devise suitable statements to check support for these aspects, however,
question 11, which was primarily devised for section D was of some use. This asked whether the
placement had helped them to be more critical about current research. It was supported with a
mean of 2.833 and a standard deviation of 1.082.
SECTION D: originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical
understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and
interpret knowledge in the discipline
Five questions covered this section. Questions 11 to 15 addressed the ability of the placement to
inform a more developed critical understanding of research. This question can be considered
valid as, at the time of asking, students should have been writing up their final year dissertations.
The question asked was whether the placement had helped them to be more critical about current
research. This produced one of the least strongly supported answers, but even so, the assertion
was supported, mean of 2.833 and a standard deviation of 1.082. Question 12: "I would not have
chosen my dissertation topic if I had not been on my placement" produce limited support, mean
of 2.75 and a standard deviation of 1.626. Question 13 asked whether the placement had helped
them to evaluate the research methodology for their dissertation. It is extremely unlikely that
students would have had any specific instruction in this respect but their general critical
awareness may have improved. This statement was the one of two statements not supported by
students with a mean of 3.375 and reasonably strong agreement with a standard deviation of
0.976.
Question 14 was the other statement not supported. Students were asked whether their
placement had helped them to be more critical of the research methodology for their dissertation.
This produced a mean of 3.094 and a standard deviation of 0.9928. This would suggest that
though there is not strong support, neither is there strong disagreement, suggesting that, perhaps,
some critical awareness of research methodologies may have developed. Together, the general
lack of support for these questions would suggest that students took the exercise seriously and
that the questionnaire process produced answers with some validity.
Question 15 was the last to deal with research. It asked whether the placement had helped them
understand how research helps the profession to develop, better than they would have done
without the placement. This was supported with a mean of 2.65 and a standard deviation of 1.01
SECTION E: deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound
judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to
specialist and non-specialist audiences
Seven questions were devised to check this section. Question 19 asked whether they had to deal
with complex issues. This was supported with a mean of 2 and a standard deviation of 0.956.
Question 20 addressed issues of judgement, "I did not always have all the data I needed but was
still able to make a judgement". This was supported; mean 2.056, standard deviation 0.860.
Questions 21 to 23 asked whether students had to communicate their conclusions to other parties.
These were all supported; property professionals/specialists mean 1.89 standard deviation 1.022
other professionals/specialists mean 2.129 standard deviation 1.0185 public/non professionals
mean 2.514, standard deviation 1.42. Question 28 showed that the ability to talk to people in
business had improved, mean 1.417 standard deviation 0.77. Question 37 examined whether the
student thought the placement had helped them learn how to find out information for themselves.
Mean 1.694, standard deviation 0.749. This question also helps inform Section F.
SECTION F: demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and
act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level;
Seven questions were also devised to check this section. Question 16 asked whether the
placement had helped the student gain confidence in their self, strongly supported with a mean of
1.57 and strong agreement at standard deviation0.698. Question 24 asked whether students had
to tackle and solve problems on their own. They reported they did; mean 1.778 and standard
deviation 0.898. Question 25 found out that they also had to plan and implement tasks, mean
1.64, standard deviation 0.723. Question 29 explored whether they felt that their ability to solve
problems had improved, which was supported; mean 1.861, standard deviation 0 .961. Question
32 explored whether the ability to work on their own had improved, which was again supported;
mean 1.89, standard deviation 0.854. Question 33 explored whether they felt they became more
independent, again strongly supported; mean 1.89, standard deviation 0.979. This question also
helps with section H. Question 35 reported that they had gained in self reliance Mean 2.134,
standard deviation 0.867. Question 37 examined whether the student thought the placement had
helped them learn how to find out information for themselves, mean1.694, standard deviation
0.749. This question also helped inform Section E.
SECTION G: continue to advance their knowledge and understanding, and to develop new
skills to a high level;
Only one question was devised to test this area. Question 18 asked whether the placement had
helped the student to understand the need to keep on learning after graduation. This was again
strongly supported, mean 1.8286, standard deviation 0.9230.
SECTION H: …" decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations; and
“the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development.
Five questions were devised to test this section. According to answers to Question 26, decisions
were made in unpredictable situations, mean 2.194 and standard deviation 1.037. Students also
reported that they had developed their ability to learn on their own, Question 27, with a mean of
1.7428, standard deviation 0.95. Question 30 explored whether the ability to learn on their own
improved with their placement, which it had; mean 2 standard deviation 1.014. Question 31
explored their ability to manage their own learning had improved, which it also had again, mean
2.139 and standard deviation 0.99. Question 33 explored whether they felt they became more
independent, which was again strongly supported; mean 1.89, standard deviation 0.979.
Miscellaneous
Three questions were added which did not explicitly relate to the benchmark statements, but
which did test commonly held assertions about the value of the placement experience. Question
5 sought to find whether the placement had helped students get more out of their final year
studies. This was again supported, although not as strongly as might have been anticipated,
considering it is a commonly held view among academics, mean 2.114, standard deviation 1.132.
Question 10 similarly sought to find whether the placement had helped them better understand
the subject, another commonly held view. It had, with a mean of 1.972 and a standard deviation
of 1.135. Lastly, Question 17 found out that the fact that students were advising people rather
than just offering advice on buildings had helped them to be more interested in clients as people,
mean 1.828, standard deviation 0.9230.
9. Conclusions
On the basis of the forgoing results, it would seem that there is strong support from student
experience that a properly constructed placement goes some way to meeting the differential
requirements of a Master’s degree. In this way it is performing a genuine academic function and
is definitely more than simply work experience. To examine this further, the means for the
statements in each section have been tabulated and their mean calculated. This clearly shows
that many of the Master’s benchmark statements are strongly supported by the student
experience.
SECTION A: …knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights,
much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study, or
area of professional practice
Mean Standard deviation
2.22 1.070
2.388 0.903
1.917 1.994
Mean of means 2.175
SECTION B: a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research
or advanced scholarship;
Mean Standard deviation
1.9722 1.135
SECTION C: to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline;
And “to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to
propose new hypotheses
Mean Standard deviation
2.833 1.082
SECTION D: originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical
understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and
interpret knowledge in the discipline
Mean Standard deviation
2.833 1.082
2.75 1.626
3.375 0.976
3.094 0.993
2.65 1.01
Mean of means 2.940
SECTION E: deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound
judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to
specialist and non-specialist audiences
Mean Standard deviation
2 0.956
2.056 0.860
1.89 1.022
2.129 1.0185
2.514 1.42
1.417 0.770
1.694 0.749
Mean of means 1.957
SECTION F: demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and
act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level.
Mean Standard deviation
1.570 0.698
1.778 0.898
1.640 0.723
1.861 0.961
1.890 0.854
1.890 0.979
2.134 0.867
1.694 0.749
Mean of means 1.807
SECTION G: continue to advance their knowledge and understanding, and to develop new
skills to a high level;
Mean Standard deviation
1.8286 0.9230
SECTION H: …" decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations; and
“the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development.
Mean Standard deviation
2.194 1.037
1.7428 0.950
2 1.014
2.139 0.990
1.89 0.979
Mean of means 1.993
When the mean of means derived from this analysis is ranked, the relative strengths of agreement
can be seen in Table 6. All aspects show some support, although Section D is the weakest. This
is probably where most academics would expect intellectual development in the post graduate
arena and one which has been a traditional landmark of the British Doctorate. It might also be
surprising if students, who have not yet graduated, would even know if they were being original.
Section C was the next least supported, but these figures may be skewed by the fact that some of
the Planning and Property Development students in the sample would not have been undertaking
a dissertation as part of their final year. A facility had been included on the on-line questionnaire
to report which programme pathway the students was studying. Unfortunately, when the
questionnaire went live it did not work according to plan. If there were an error, it would
probably be that the strength of agreement reported would be understated, rather than overstated.
The implications are that the sandwich students on these courses are engaged in and obtaining an
enhanced learning experience above and beyond that of work experience. This experience is
helping them in the attainment of some of the intellectual attributes more normally associated
with post graduates from Masters courses. Perhaps this should be recognized by courses.
TABLE 6: Rank order correlation of student sandwich experience with master’s subject
benchmark statements
Rank Order Section Section Mean
1 F demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and
solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and
implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level.
1.807
2 G continue to advance their knowledge and understanding,
and to develop new skills to a high level;
1.8286
3 E deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively,
make sound judgements in the absence of complete data,
and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and
non-specialist audiences
1.957
4 B a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to
their own research or advanced scholarship;
1.9722
5 H decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations;
and
“the independent learning ability required for continuing
professional development.
1.993
6 A knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems
and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the
forefront of their academic discipline, field of study, or area
of professional practice
2.175
7 C to evaluate critically current research and advanced
scholarship in the discipline;
And " to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of
them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses
2.833
8 D originality in the application of knowledge, together with a
practical understanding of how established techniques of
research and enquiry are used to create and interpret
knowledge in the discipline
2.940
Sandwich courses may even warrant their own benchmark statements, above and beyond those
of simply a Certificate or Diploma in Professional Practice. Given the fact that students are
paying an increased contribution towards their degree and employers are increasingly looking for
post graduate qualities, these are probably important issues.
10. Limitations
Some of the limitations have already been explored. The main limitation is almost certainly the
fact that student’s opinions were requested. An alternative approach might be to test, non
sandwich, sandwich and Master’s students for evidence of the aspects, covered in the
questionnaire, by some form of examination. The cynical would say this is already done by the
fact that students are awarded a Masters or Honours degree but that would be to miss an
important point as the current benchmark statements do not require the aspects, highlighted in
Table 5, to be assessed. Consequently their attainment may be being overlooked.
11. References
Allen S, Williams A, 2005, Developing a framework to evaluate industry/higher education engagement, conference proceedings of the Queensland University of Technology Research Week International Conference 4-8 July, Brisbane, Australia.
Jansen M, 2005, A Graduated Decline, Property Week 70(19).
McGough T, 2005, Times are a’ Changing, Estates Gazette Interactive, 15 October., www.egi.co.uk/egarchive_detail.asp?fprint=l&arch_id=220791&, accessed 21/11/2005.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2001, Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards, Higher Education: Placement Learning, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2001, The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England Wales and Northern Ireland, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Sastry T, 2004, Postgraduate Education in the United Kingdom, Higher Education Policy Institute, UK.
Tovey R, undated report, Research and Higher Education Course Providers: Their Role in Real Estate Education, RICS.
