Education — Enrolment to Graduation

// One intake cohort walked from application to graduation, with every
// student who left the cohort attributed to a named reason at the year
// it happened. The rubric underneath is what the final-year capstone was
// marked against, so progression and assessment sit in one document.

rubric capstone {
  title: "Capstone project assessment"
  course: "BEng 400 · Capstone"
  assignment: "Final capstone report and oral defence"
  author: "Programme board"
}

criterion design {
  name: "Design quality"
  weight: 0.35
  description: "Soundness of the proposed design against the stated requirements."
}

criterion rigour {
  name: "Analytical rigour"
  weight: 0.30
  description: "Correctness of the modelling, testing and evidence offered."
}

criterion communication {
  name: "Communication"
  weight: 0.20
  description: "Clarity of the written report and of the oral defence."
}

criterion ethics {
  name: "Professional judgement"
  weight: 0.15
  description: "Treatment of safety, sustainability and professional obligations."
}

level design_dev {
  criterion: design
  label: "Developing"
  points: 2
  descriptor: "A workable design; requirements are met only in part."
}

level design_pro {
  criterion: design
  label: "Proficient"
  points: 3
  descriptor: "Design meets every stated requirement and justifies its trade-offs."
}

level design_exe {
  criterion: design
  label: "Exemplary"
  points: 4
  descriptor: "Design is defensible against alternatives the brief did not name."
}

level rigour_dev {
  criterion: rigour
  label: "Developing"
  points: 2
  descriptor: "Analysis present but the evidence does not carry the conclusion."
}

level rigour_pro {
  criterion: rigour
  label: "Proficient"
  points: 3
  descriptor: "Methods are appropriate and the results support the claims made."
}

level rigour_exe {
  criterion: rigour
  label: "Exemplary"
  points: 4
  descriptor: "Uncertainty is quantified and the analysis anticipates its critics."
}

level comm_dev {
  criterion: communication
  label: "Developing"
  points: 2
  descriptor: "Report is complete but the argument is hard to follow."
}

level comm_pro {
  criterion: communication
  label: "Proficient"
  points: 3
  descriptor: "Report and defence are clear, structured and well figured."
}

level comm_exe {
  criterion: communication
  label: "Exemplary"
  points: 4
  descriptor: "A non-specialist reader could act on this report."
}

level ethics_dev {
  criterion: ethics
  label: "Developing"
  points: 2
  descriptor: "Obligations acknowledged without being worked through."
}

level ethics_pro {
  criterion: ethics
  label: "Proficient"
  points: 3
  descriptor: "Safety and sustainability are addressed as design constraints."
}

level ethics_exe {
  criterion: ethics
  label: "Exemplary"
  points: 4
  descriptor: "Ethical reasoning changed a design decision, and says which."
}

// ── The 2021 intake, year by year. 3 120 applied, 868 graduated.
cohort applied {
  n: 3120 source "Admissions system, 2021 intake"
}

cohort offered {
  n: 1840
  from: applied
  excluded: {
    below_entry_tariff: 962
    incomplete_application: 318
  }
}

cohort enrolled {
  n: 1104
  from: offered
  excluded: {
    declined_offer: 623
    deferred_entry: 113
  }
}

cohort progressed_year_2 {
  n: 967
  from: enrolled
  excluded: {
    withdrew_in_year_1: 92
    failed_progression_board: 45
  }
}

cohort progressed_year_3 {
  n: 921
  from: progressed_year_2
  excluded: {
    withdrew_in_year_2: 31
    transferred_programme: 15
  }
}

cohort final_year {
  n: 903
  from: progressed_year_3
  excluded: {
    intermitted: 12
    withdrew_in_year_3: 6
  }
}

cohort graduated {
  n: 868
  from: final_year
  excluded: {
    failed_capstone: 24
    did_not_submit: 11
  }
}

view grid: rubric_grid
view progression: consort(applied)