Author Description

The aim of this report is to examine the potential use of information from the Student Outcomes Survey, including the use of student course satisfaction information and post-study outcomes, as a means of determining markers of training quality. In an analysis of the student course satisfaction measures, the authors found there are very small variations in reported average student satisfaction across providers, with and without controls for factors that differ among providers unrelated to training quality, such as differences in student intake. There are several possible reasons for this, including the sample used for the survey not being representative of all VET (vocational education and training) participants. The authors argue that outcome measures from the Student Outcomes Survey, such as further study and labour market outcomes, are more meaningful for students making choices on courses and providers, given that such outcomes are the main motivations for study. Further, differences in labour market outcomes also signal how valuable the skills acquired are to employers. All else being equal, the more favourable the graduate employment outcomes relative to competitors, the better a provider is in meeting the needs of students. The authors recommend the collation of outcome measures from the Student Outcomes Survey, along with other relevant course and provider information, to be made available as part of a "scoreboard" of information on courses, similar to the "Good universities guide" for prospective higher education students. Such a depository of information makes it easy for students to compare and contrast courses and providers. However, they recognise that using outcomes for comparison has its drawbacks. In particular, differences in the outcomes across providers may not only reflect differences in quality, but also differences in the regions and in student clientele, which may create perverse incentives for providers to bias their student intake, shift thei