• Admissions Transparency Forums - April 2018

    Timeline

    Q. Why is May 2018 the due date when advertising for potential applicants for the following year does not commence until August?

    The Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets document is for ‘adoption by end May 2018’. This means the information should be ready for transfer to the TACs, but providers need not publish the information (on websites or in reports) by May unless it is a publication that will be used by applicants considering study in 2019. Providers should publish, on their websites and in other documents, information for applicants considering study in 2019 at the very least, by the time the provider holds an Open Day, and for many providers this is August 2018.

    Q. Does the information for courses with a midyear intake in 2018 need to comply with the criteria for 2019 entry?

    No. For the 2018 midyear entry the old admissions information is acceptable, but for the 2019 cycle it needs to comply with the new admissions information requirements.

    Q. We are a member of a TAC but we also receive direct applications, so the data that TAC has is not complete.

    The data that you provide in your student and ATAR profiles should include students that applied via the TAC plus students that applied directly. In the main, though, it seems likely that ATAR-based applications would generally be included in TAC data.

    Q. If a provider does not supply their data to the TAC by the due date, what will happen?

    The data will not be included in the TAC’s publication.

    Information about the background of applicant grouping

    Q. Why is the cut off for recent secondary education in the last two years?

    The basis of admissions transparency is to provide information that is most relevant to applicants of different backgrounds. A person who has left school more than two years ago may have study, work or other experience that could contribute to their chance of admission in addition to evidence that a person who just finished secondary school may have to offer. Past school results may be relevant to an applicant of any age. But guidance on including information about other work and life experience is more likely to be relevant to an applicant who completed their secondary education some time ago. If a mature age applicant has recently completed secondary subjects through a TAFE or other education provider and was using those results to apply, they would likely fit into the recent secondary education group.

    Q. If a provider uses secondary education results as the basis of admission for applicants that finished school more than two years ago, how should they be reported?

    The evidence and process through which a provider assesses and determines admission for each course is a decision for the provider and may not be directly related to the applicant groupings in the information sets.

    If the admission of all students is based on their secondary education results (and neither subsequent study or work experience are taken into account) then the provider could choose either to describe those requirements under the heading of “essential requirements for admission” or repeat the information under each student background heading.

    Note: The ATAR profile should only include data for applicants that finished school in the two years prior to their application.

    Q. How is this information transparent if we select applicants one way but report them in another category?

    The purpose of the student profile is to provide applicants with information about the background of their potential student colleagues, regardless of the basis on which they were admitted.

    Q. Is there a hierarchy for the background groups? 

    All applicant groupings are equally valid. Providers are free to order their admissions information in the way that best meets the needs of their stakeholders. For some that may mean listing work and life experience first, for others it may mean highlighting the requirements for school leavers more prominently.

    In a strict logical sense, though, there is an implicit decision-making hierarchy as to which grouping an applicant would fall into. Students who have undertaken any higher education since leaving school are reported in the higher education category. If they don’t have higher education but they have undertaken VET study since leaving school they are reported in the VET category. If they don’t have higher education or VET study and have never completed year 12 or completed their secondary education more than two years ago they are reported in the work and life experience category. All students who completed their secondary education within the last two years (including, for example, mature age students who studied at TAFE) are reported in the recent secondary education category.

    Q. What if an applicant falls under more than one category?

    An applicant can only be reported in one category and that category is the first one they fit into according to the logical hierarchy explained above. The provider may wish to indicate to potential applicants which qualifications and experience will form the basis of their admission.

    Data and data quality

    Q. Can we modify the format or add additional information to the student profile and ATAR tables (for example, can it be shown as a graph)?

    The ATAR table and the student profile are templates and should not be modified. Providers may choose to present the information in a graph or graphically in addition to the template, but the templates should be shown as per the implementation plan so that students can easily compare across providers.

    Q. Does there need to be a correlation between the HEIMS data and the admissions transparency data?

    The data that is requested for the purposes of admissions transparency should be in line with data provided for HEIMS.

    Q. We have a minimum ATAR/OP across all our courses in our institution and do not collect the applicants’ actual ATAR. Should we still report this in the ATAR/OP table?

    In order to determine whether an applicant has the minimum ATAR/OP you would need to collect the applicant’s ATAR/OP. If that is not currently recorded and some of your applicants fall into the recent secondary education applicant group, then it should be going forward so that meaningful data can be entered into the ATAR/OP profile. If you use the TAC, then the TAC is likely to have that data.

    Q. Can we report data from the last complete year (for example, 2017 instead of 2018 which is still in progress)?

    The student profile should indicate the most representative cohort. The provider can decide whether to update the profile for the second semester or not. The recommendation is to use the most recent period for which a complete data set exists. Data for semester 1, 2018 or the full 2018 calendar year (if available) is likely to be the most relevant for applicants to be admitted in semester one 2019. Please ensure that the table shows which time period the data is from.

    Q. How can applicants compare student profile data from different providers if they are from different years?

    Student profiles are representative of the typical cohort which is unlikely to change much from year to year. Further, the difference in student profiles from adjacent time periods would seem unlikely to invalidate a potential applicant’s decision. Providers who have a large intake of one particular cohort in second semester (for example, international students) may wish to consider using profiles that cover a full calendar year to ensure the data are fully representative.

    Q. Will the selection rank always be higher than the ATAR?

    In some courses, the person who gained entry with the lowest ATAR may not have had an adjustment so their selection rank will be equal to their ATAR. Further, some providers use selection ranks that are quite different to the ATAR.

    Q. Some providers have selection ranks that represent a combination of ATAR and other admission criteria. For example, the resulting ranks might be numbers from 0 to 356. Should these be reported?

    Reporting of the selection rank is optional. However if admission to the course is based on a selection rank that includes admission criteria in addition to the ATAR it would be useful to present the selection rank data. An explanation of how the selection rank is prepared should be included so the potential applicant can understand the reported data.

    Q. How can we represent the number of international students when the majority of them commence in semester 2?

    Consideration should be given to using full calendar year student data in the student profile to ensure it is fully representative of the likely student cohort. If necessary, the provider could update the student profile prior to applications for second semester.

    Q. How do we deal with changing course information in general?

    Changes in course information that are required during the application and offer period should be updated on provider websites and any changes identified.

    Q. Can providers revise the minimum ATAR and publish it?

    Yes. However, it is important that applicants be able to have confidence in such a threshold if a provider chooses to set one. Once a minimum ATAR is set, it should not be revised within the relevant intake or offer period. That is, a potential applicant who has decided to change their preferences because their ATAR was below the minimum should not later find out that the Lowest ATAR to which an offer was made was below the published minimum that they relied on to make their decision.

    Course information

    Q. We have small numbers of students in our courses, so our student profiles will have ‘less than 5’ or ‘N/A’ in most categories. How should we manage this?

    If your courses have small numbers and there are a number of courses within the same faculty you could aggregate the courses in order to provide a student profile that is useful to potential applicants. That is, provide the total number of students in each course but provide a student profile for the faculty. If all the figures presented are ‘N/A’ they would be of little use from either perspective.

    Q. Some providers offer the same course in a number of states and the admissions information set differs. How should the information be presented?

    TEQSA can provide assistance in working out the best way to present admissions information when courses are provided in different locations. If the same course is delivered in a number of states the course information is likely to be similar and could be shown in one information set. If the ATAR profile is different for each campus it may be useful to show them separately or as a table with a column for each campus. Depending on how many students take the course in each state it may be useful to aggregate the data and provide a student profile for the course as a whole. Please ensure that it is clear which campuses are included in the data presented. Please contact TEQSA if you require further advice.

    Q. We have small numbers of domestic students (and in some courses we have none) but we would like to increase the numbers of domestic students. We are concerned that presenting the student profile will dissuade domestic students from applying.

    You will need to present the data as it stands in your student profile. There are likely to be a number of reasons the cohort of domestic students is small and the presentation of a student profile will not change the fact that you do have a small cohort of domestic students.

    Q. We run courses for another provider and admissions information for these courses is shown on our website. Do we need to report the admissions information set including the Student and the ATAR profiles?

    If a potential applicant can access admissions information on your website this should be the same as the admissions information available on the other provider’s website. If you do not include the full admissions information set then you should include a link to the other provider’s website where the full admissions information set should be available.

    Q. Are the new terms expected to be included in the provider’s information that is delivered to the TACs?

    Yes, the new terminology needs to be included in the TACs’ publications as it pertains to the 2019 entry cohort.

    Q. We have enabling courses that do not quite match the definition of enabling courses or bridging courses. How do we report on those?

    The definitions of enabling courses and bridging courses are provided in the common terms. A bridging course provides specific knowledge (for example, calculus mathematics) that will be needed to successfully undertake a particular course. An enabling course develops study-related skills (such as study techniques or English language proficiency). Please contact TEQSA if you are unsure whether a course should be described as a bridging course or an enabling course.

    The scope of Admissions Transparency

    Q. What is the definition of ‘undergraduate’?

    As per the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) ‘undergraduate’ includes AQF levels 5 (diploma), 6 (advanced diploma, associate degree), 7 (bachelor) and bachelor honours degrees (which are designated AQF level 8) qualifications.

    Q. Should information for admission to Bachelor Honours courses be included?

    As an undergraduate award, Bachelor Honours is in scope for admissions transparency. However, information on Bachelor Honours courses is only required if it is already being provided to your TAC for inclusion in its information products.

    Q. If we have low numbers of domestic students, do we need to provide the information?

    If a provider does not accept applications from domestic students, the implementation of admissions transparency at this point is not required. If you do accept applications from domestic students you would be expected to have admissions information available in the new formats.

    TEQSA’s formative evaluation

    Q. Can TEQSA please give insight to providers of the evaluations that were done in 2017?

    TEQSA conducted a formative evaluation of provider websites at a point in time which is not representative of where providers are at this point in time. The formative evaluation was conducted so that the Admissions Transparency Implementation Working Group and TEQSA could identify the challenges the providers were having in implementing the requirements. That information fed into the development of TEQSA’s Advice on Admissions Transparency.

    TEQSA welcomes enquiries from providers and is happy to answer questions and provide verbal feedback on provider publications and website in relation to admissions transparency. TEQSA used an excel spreadsheet which lists the requirements of the admissions transparency implementation plan. Based on this spreadsheet, upon request, TEQSA has developed a checklist (PDF, 128 KB) (DOCX, 146 KB) which may help providers to implement the requirements of admissions transparency.

    The Higher Education Admissions Information Platform (HEAIP)

    Information about the HEAIP will shortly be sent to all providers by the Department of Education and Training (Department). If you have any questions about the HEAIP please email AdmissionsInformationPlatform@education.gov.au

    Further questions about admissions transparency

    If you have a question that has not been answered please email the TEQSA Admissions Transparency team at admissions@teqsa.gov.au.
     

    Last updated:
  • Rosary Tertiary Institute Australia Pty Ltd

    Application for registration and course accreditation

    Decision:

    Rejected

    Date of decision:

    28 March 2018

    Main reasons for decision:

    The decisions were made on the basis that TEQSA was not satisfied that Rosary Tertiary Institute Australia Pty Ltd (RTI) meets the following provisions of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015:  

    • Standards 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 in relation to staffing, academic leadership and learning environment
    • Standard 6.2.1 in relation to corporate monitoring and accountability, including risk identification, management and mitigation, and academic governance and quality assurance
    • Standards 6.2.1 and 3.3.2 in relation to financial viability and infrastructure, and provision of learning resources
    • Criteria B1.1 (Higher Education Provider Category) in relation to the scholarship activity of academic staff, and the delivery of teaching and learning that engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry.
    Review stage:  
    Last updated:
  • National Business and Technology Institute Pty Ltd

    Application for registration and course accreditation

    Decision:

    Rejected

    Date of decision:

    8 February 2018

    Main reasons for decision:

    The decisions were made on the basis that TEQSA was not satisfied that National Business and Technology Institute Pty Ltd (NBTI) meets the following provisions of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2011:  

    • Provider Registration Standards (PRS) 3.4, 3.8 and 6.4, in relation to corporate and academic governance
    • PRS 5.1 and 5.2, Provider Course Accreditation Standards (PCAS) 4.1 and Provider Category Standard 1.4  in relation to NBTI’s staffing, including academic leadership, management and staff scholarship
    • PCAS 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and 5.1, in relation to the quality of NBTI’s proposed courses
    • PRS 1.5, in relation to NBTI’s history and the history of its related entities.
    Review stage:  
    Last updated:
  • Copyright

    Creative Commons logo

    With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence.

    The details of the licence conditions and the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 licence are available on the Creative Commons website.

    NOTE: The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency must be acknowledged as the author of copyright material.

    Last updated:
  • Acts and standards

    The following acts and standards govern Australian higher education.

    Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Act 2011

    The TEQSA Act established us as Australia’s national quality assurance and regulatory agency for higher education. It applies for regulation of higher education through a standards-based quality framework with principles relating to regulatory necessity, risk and proportionality.

    Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HES Framework)

    The Threshold Standards apply to all higher education providers. Set by the Minister for Education on the advice of a panel with expertise in the delivery of higher education, they are the minimum level of achievement that a provider must meet and maintain to be registered to deliver higher education courses of study.

    Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act)

    The ESOS Act applies to providers offering courses to students in Australia on student visas. These include higher education courses, Foundation Programs (except those delivered by schools), and ELICOS programs delivered by higher education providers.

    National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code 2018)

    The National Code 2018 is a set of nationally consistent standards that protect international students. The National Code governs courses registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS). Only CRICOS courses can be offered to international students studying in Australia on a student visa.

    Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)

    The AQF is the national policy for regulated qualifications in Australian education and training. It is delivered through the Australian Government Department of Education in consultation with the states and territories.

    Last updated:
  • Student wellbeing

  • TEQSA stakeholder survey report and response 2021

    Body

    TEQSA has undertaken a formal stakeholder consultation on an annual basis since 2015-16 to gain insights into views on the agency, its regulatory output and approach to risk. The feedback received also informs strategic initiatives in relation to continuous improvement, sector-wide risk management and stakeholder engagement. 

    Consultations this year were conducted via a general survey of providers. In order to maintain independence of the feedback received, TEQSA engaged JWS Research to conduct the survey and analysis on TEQSA’s behalf. The findings of the survey, together with TEQSA’s response, can be found below.

    TEQSA wishes to acknowledge JWS Research, together with all providers, for their contributions to this year’s stakeholder consultations.

    Stakeholder
    Publication type
  • What students can expect from providers

    All Australian higher education providers must offer students quality higher education and access to information related to their experience.

    The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 sets out a number of requirements that all providers must meet in order to be registered with TEQSA. The Threshold Standards have been structured to align with student experiences – from enrolment to award of qualification.

    In line with the requirements of the Threshold Standards, providers must inform both current and future students in relation to:

    • fees and refunds
    • who to contact for particular questions
    • academic requirements and deadlines
    • complaints and grievance processes, including access to external review processes if a complaint has not been resolved (more information is available in our Complaints section)
    • operations contracted to a third party
    • access to learning resources, including technical requirements for access to IT system support services
    • ways to enhance personal safety and security, both on and off campus.

    What if I have an issue with a higher education provider?

    If you are unhappy about aspects of your experience with a higher education provider, you should access your providers’ complaints resolution policies and procedures. These policies and procedures should be easily accessible, consistent, fair and confidential. They should also include advice and support on how to resolve your complaint.

    In most cases, your complaint should be resolved locally and informally. However, you may need to use your provider’s formal complaints procedures.

    We can only accept complaints about a provider’s compliance with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Act 2011 and the Threshold Standards. More information on what we can and cannot accept complaints about is available in our Complaints section.

    For international students

    The Study Australia website is the trusted source of information for prospective international students, their families and agents to learn more about Australia as a place to study.

    The website has practical and reliable information to help students make informed decisions about where they'd like to study in Australia, which course and institution best suits their needs, and what the experience can be like when they live and study here.

    It also sets out to reassure prospective students about the laws and specialist services in place in Australia, which ensure every individual feels safe, welcomed, supported and protected while in Australia.

    Study Australia helps students to understand their rights and responsibilities on issues as diverse as visas, employment, and tuition fees, and is committed to looking after students every step of their study journey.

    Last updated:
  • HESF Domain 7: Representation, information and information management

    Scope and intent of the Domain

    This Domain (Sections 7.1-7.3) of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HES Framework) encompasses:

    • whether the providers' representations (whether directly or through other parties) about themselves and the course(s) of study they offer are accurate, ethical and not misleading in their claims (Section 7.1)
    • whether there is sufficient publicly available information to assist students in making informed choices about selecting a course of study, to enable effective and informed participation in a chosen course of study and to resolve grievances if necessary, including the particular needs of international students studying in Australia (Section 7.2)
    • the existence of a readily accessible public description of the provider and its operations
    • the requirement that the provider’s information management system meets certain critical requirements concerning content, security and integrity (Section 7.3).

    Our commentary

    7.1 Representation

    TEQSA’s main interest will be in the materials that the provider uses to represent itself and its offerings, whether to particular students or more generally. This can include marketing materials, claims about career outcomes arising from courses of study and the like. Where a provider is represented by agents, we will seek evidence of a formal contractual engagement with the agent(s) that is consistent with the requirements of the Standard, that agents are correctly informed about the provider’s operations and offerings and that the performance of agents is monitored, including that corrective action is taken if necessary. It is expected that much of the evidence required in relation to representation will already be in the public domain (e.g. websites, brochures, prospectuses, advertisements etc.) and that it will be easy for providers to direct us to that material (some materials may be equally applicable to other Sections such as 7.2 and 7.3). We will need to be satisfied that the provider’s representations are accurate, ethical and not misleading.

    In relation to Standard 7.1.4, a short narrative about the provider’s use of agents accompanied by examples of existing contractual arrangements, the resources provided to agents and an outline of monitoring arrangements and any corrective actions undertaken could illustrate that this Standard is met, where required. The Standards also call for providers to have controls in place over the way its courses are represented to prospective and current students by any third party, including through third party websites.

    7.2 Information for Prospective and Current Students

    Standards 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 require the public disclosure of a range of information, aimed largely at informed choices and participation by students (including international students if applicable). Information about the design and structure of courses, factors taken into account in selection (such as the use of ATAR and other requirements), all obligations and liabilities incurred by students (such as fees and charges and HELP liabilities), and the student support and facilities being made available, must be disclosed transparently. Students should be able to readily access all information needed for them to estimate realistic prospects for admission to each course. All information relating to professional accreditation of the course must be disclosed, as discussed in relation to Section 1.1 and Standard 3.1.5.

    TEQSA will need to be satisfied that the information required is indeed publicly available, accessible (including to individuals with special needs) and accurate. While Standard 7.3.1 requires a ‘repository of publicly-available current information about the higher education provider’, we do not require the creation of a dedicated repository that is separate from a provider’s existing sources of information, nor do we seek to prescribe the format of its presentation. For example, a provider may for operational reasons, choose to present its information in groupings or blocks of data that are different from the groupings specified by the Standard, and in various sections of its website. This is not of concern, provided that the information requirements of the Standard are met (providers should note that Standards 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 impose particular requirements on the content of some information required by Section 7.2).

    In relation to Standard 7.2.3, where applicable, we will expect a provider to be able to describe, and illustrate by example, the mechanisms that are in place to monitor achievement of statutory obligations in relation to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 in relation to international students.

    In relation to Standard 7.2.4, we will expect to see that any formal offer made to students contains warnings of potential changes to fees and charges or other known changes expected in an intended course of study.

    Information in the public domain is subject to monitoring at any time. This may mean that a provider will not always be required to submit evidence in relation to Section 7.2 in submissions for regulatory purposes. On the other hand, monitoring of a provider’s public information may raise concerns that lead to a request for further information/clarification outside of the provider’s normal regulatory cycle.

    7.3 Information Management

    Standard 7.3.1 contains a number of specific requirements for publicly available information. As mentioned in relation to Section 7.2, TEQSA does not seek to specify the form of presentation of this information, however it does expect the requirements of Standard 7.3.1 to be readily accessible, ideally from a single starting point. There could be, for example, a link from a provider’s website home page to another page that will in turn link to all of the types of information listed in 7.3.1 (a to m). 

    The information to be made available about the provider’s financial standing is specified in a separate Guidance note and is designed to give prospective students some assurance that the provider is a going concern. This information is separate to what we require in order to assess the financial risk of a provider, either as part of the annual risk assessment or as part of the assessment for registration, re-registration, course accreditation or re-accreditation. 

    Information about enrolment numbers (7.3.1i) in the list of a provider’s course(s) should give prospective students an indication of the scale of the provider and learning environment. The information should be based on recent actual enrolments in the case of an existing course, or realistic projections in the case of a new course. A range could be used (e.g. ‘we expect to enrol between x and y students’). In the case of nested courses, the numbers should be for the whole course. 

    As long as the requirements of Standard 7.3.2 are met in achieving Section 7.2, we will not require further reiteration in relation to 7.3.2. For Paragraph 7.3.3a, we will require a description and, possibly, a demonstration of the capability of the provider’s information system to meet the requirements of this Standard. Achievement of Paragraph 7.3.3b will require identification of the policies, processes and practices in sufficient detail for us to be satisfied that this Standard is met and that predictable risks are being mitigated as far as is reasonably possible for the nature and scale of the provider’s operations - including the onus on the provider to issue qualifications legitimately (as required by Paragraph 6.2.1h). In relation to Standard 7.3.3d, we will require a description of the systems, processes and reporting that support achievement of this Standard (and support the corporate accountability of the governing body in this respect [Standard 6.1.1]). This may be achieved by reference to mechanisms already described in relation to other Standards (e.g. Institutional Quality Assurance or Governance and Accountability) and, if so, reiteration of the detail for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with this Standard will not be required.

    Once we are satisfied that a provider has demonstrated that its systems meet, and are likely to continue to meet, Standard 7.3.3 (a-c), we may require only limited evidence of continuing compliance with these Standards. However, will always have an interest in reviewing the management of complaints and misconduct (Paragraph 7.3.3c), irrespective of the capability of a provider’s information management systems. 

    Reference points

    • Australian Government, Australian Consumer Laws (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010) and the Trade Practices Act 1974
    • Australian Government, National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018
    • Australian Government, Privacy Act (1988) and the Australian Privacy Principles
    • Australian Government (July 2009), Using Education Agents
    • British Council, Statement of Principles for the Ethical Recruitment of International Students by Education Agents and Consultants (The London Statement) (2012) released by the British Council
    • International Education Association of Australia, Education Agent Code of Ethics (2016)
    • Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG), Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Version 2.0

    Relevant guidance notes

    The following guidance notes can be accessed at our Guidance notes page, or from the links below:

    Last updated: