Table 7a Sample Clauses
Table 7a. Statistical targets and milestones relating to your applicants, entrants or student body Reference number Please select target type from the drop-down menu Description (500 characters maximum) Is this a collaborative target? Baseline year Baseline data Yearly milestones (numeric where possible, however you may use text) Commentary on your milestones/targets or textual description where numerical description is not appropriate (500 characters maximum) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 T16a_01 HESA T1a - Low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3) (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To increase the proportion of young LPN students from this group to 5.4% by 2019/20 No 2013-14 4% 4% 4% 4.5% 4.9% 5.4% T16a_02 HESA T2a - (Mature, full-time, first degree entrants) To increase the proportion of mature LPN students from this group to 4% by 2019/20 No 2013-14 2.2% 2.2% 2.5% 3% 3.5% 4% T16a_03 HESA T7 - Students in receipt of DSA (full-time, first degree entrants) To increase the proportion of this group to 7% by 2019/20 No 2013-14 6.3% 6.3% 6.5% 6.7% 6.9% 7% T16a_04 HESA T1a - NS-SEC classes 4-7 (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To maintain the proportion of students from this group by 2019/20 No 2013-14 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% T16a_05 HESA T1a - State School (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To maintain the proportion of students from this group by 2019/20 No 2013-14 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% T16a_06 HESA T3a - No longer in HE after 1 year (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To reduce the non-continuation rate of young students to 5% by 2019/20 No 2012-13 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6% 5.5% 5% T16a_07 HESA T3a - No longer in HE after 1 year (Mature, full-time, first degree entrants) To reduce the non-continuation rate of mature students to 15% by 2019/20 No 2012-13 20.6% 20.6% 20.6% 18% 16% 15% T16a_08 HESA T3a - No longer in HE after 1 year (All, full-time, first degree entrants) To reduce the non-continuation rate of the overall population to 7% by 2019/20 No 2012-13 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9% 8% 7% Alongside applicant and entrant targets, we encourage you to provide targets around outreach and student success work (including collaborative work where appropriate) or other initiatives to illustrate your progress towards increasing access, student success and progression. These should be measurable outcomes ‐based targets and should focus on the number of beneficiaries reached by a particular activity/programme or the number of schools worked with, and wha...
Table 7a. Exposure results for pesticide A in mg per dosimeter for mixer/loaders & operators (TRIAL SET 1) Amount per quantity handled (mg) Table 7b: Exposure results for pesticide B in mg per dosimeter for mixer/loaders and operators (TRIAL SET 1) Amount per quantity handled (mg) Table 7c: Exposure results for pesticide A in mg a.s./ kg a.s. handled for mixer/loaders and operators (TRIAL SET 1) Amount per quantity handled (mga.s./Kg a.s.) Table 7d: Exposure results for pesticide B in mg a.s./ kg a.s. handled for mixer/loaders & operators(TRIAL SET 1) Table 7e.PDE and ADE values for mixer/loaders (mg a.s./kg a.s. handled) PESTICIDE A ML1 ML2 ML3 ML4 ML5 ML6
Table 7a. Likelihood of Beginning to Pay, Separate Analyses by Earnings Low-Income (earned < $20,000 in year prior to order) Not Low-Income (earned >= $20,000 in year prior to order) Coefficient Standard Error Hazard Ratio Coefficient Standard Error Hazard Ratio Total This month 0.73*** 0.04 2.08 0.35*** 0.06 1.41 † Last month 0.33*** 0.04 1.39 -0.02 0.07 0.98 † 2 months ago 0.24*** 0.05 1.27 -0.03 0.09 0.97 † This month 0.68*** 0.08 1.97 0.63*** 0.14 1.88 Last month 0.16 0.12 1.17 0.10 0.23 1.11 2 months ago 0.01 0.14 1.01 0.17 0.28 1.19 This month 0.31* 0.16 1.36 0.45 0.30 1.57 Last month 0.08 0.19 1.09 0.52 0.45 1.69 2 months ago -0.22 0.24 0.81 -0.32 0.74 0.72 This month 1.01*** 0.05 2.75 0.96*** 0.10 2.62 Last month 0.40*** 0.08 1.49 0.38* 0.17 1.46 2 months ago 0.48*** 0.09 1.61 0.27 0.22 1.31 This month 0.66*** 0.07 1.93 0.75*** 0.14 2.12 Last month 0.37** 0.12 1.45 0.33 0.30 1.40 2 months ago 0.17 0.15 1.19 0.52 0.37 1.68 different actions have different lags). Suspending licenses does not have a significantly different relationship between the two subgroups, though it is only significantly associated with beginning to pay for low-income fathers, for whom the standard error is smaller. While letters are associated with beginning to pay for both groups of fathers, the relationship is significantly stronger for low-income fathers. Table 7b examines separate relationships for those who were initial nonpayers compared to those who paid initially but then fell into nonpayment. All enforcement tools are significantly associated with beginning to pay for both groups except for license suspensions (which is significant for initial payers only, though relatively large standard errors and the small incidence means there is no significant difference between the subgroups). Relationships between letters and beginning to pay are significantly stronger for the initial nonpayers than the initial payers, otherwise there is no difference in the strength of the association. Table 7c shows results for those with any marital children contrasted with those who have only nonmarital children. Again there are relationships between all enforcement tools and beginning to pay support for both groups, though license suspensions are significant only for those with any marital children. There are again very few statistically significant differences between the two groups in the relationship between enforcement variables and beginning to pay, suggesting the relationship between enforcemen...
Table 7a. Statistical targets and milestones relating to your applicants, entrants or student body Number Please select target type from the drop-down menu Description (500 characters maximum) Is this a collaborative target? Baseline year Baseline data Yearly milestones (numeric where possible, however you may use text) Commentary on your milestones/targets or textual description where numerical description is not appropriate (500 characters maximum) 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 1 HESA T1b - State School (Young, full-time, undergraduate entrants) Restore 2009/10 levels of participation for young full-time undergraduates from state schools to 95.4% by 2016/17 No 2009/10 95.4% 94.5% 95% 95.4% In the 2012/13 agreement MMU anticipated that participation would drop nationally in the first two years following the introduction of tuition fees and made a commitment to arresting that fall and restoring participation levels of target groups to current levels over the next five years. Early indications suggest this may be a very ambitious target and once the actual figures are available we will review this position and may alter our targets accordingly. 2 HESA T1b - Low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR2) (Young, full-time, undergraduate entrants) Restore 2009/10 levels of participation for young full-time undergraduates from Low Participation Neighbourhoods to 15.5% by 2016/17 No 2009/10 15.5% 14.5% 15% 15.5% In the 2012/13 agreement MMU anticipated that participation would drop nationally in the first two years following the introduction of tuition fees and made a commitment to arresting that fall and restoring participation levels of target groups to current levels over the next five years. Early indications suggest this may be a very ambitious target and once the actual figures are available we will review this position and may alter our targets accordingly. 3 HESA T3b - No longer in HE after 1 year & in low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR 2) (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To half the difference between the non- continuation rate for young full-time first degree entrants from LPNs and that for those from other neighbourhoods No 2009/10 3.5% 2.5% 2% 1.75% Non-continuation rate for those from LPNs in 2009/10 was 12.8% compared with 9.3% for other neibourhoods, resulting in the current 3.5% difference . 4 HESA T3b - No longer in HE after 1 year & in low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR 2) (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To improve the ...
Table 7a. Statistical targets and milestones relating to your applicants, entrants or student body Reference number Please select target type from the drop-down menu Description (500 characters maximum) Is this a collaborative target? Baseline year Baseline data Yearly milestones (numeric where possible, however you may use text) Commentary on your milestones/targets or textual description where numerical description is not appropriate (500 characters maximum) T16a_09 HESA T2b - Low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3) (All, part-time, entrants) Increase the number of part-time undergraduate entrants to 1830 No 2013-14 1665 1700 1730 1760 1800 1830 13-14 number was 1665 T16a_10 Other statistic - Other (please give details in the next column) Increase % of first degree 1st and 2:1s to UK average No Other (please give details in Description column) 49.3 56 58 58 58 58 09-10 UK average was 58.1% T16a_11 Other statistic - Other (please give details in the next column) Maintain DLHE employed or further study above benchmark and improve to UK average No Other (please give details in Description column) 87.8 90 91 91 91 91 08-09 benchmark was 87.3%, UK average 89.9% T16a_12 HESA T7 - Students in receipt of DSA (full-time, all undergraduate entrants) Reach then exceed benchmark for % of 'all students' in receipt of DSA No Other (please give details in Description column) 4% 6% 6.5% 7% 7% 7% 2010-11 benchmark was 6.4%, England avrage was 5.4% T16a_13 Other statistic - Ethnicity (please give details in the next column) Increase the % of BME graduates achieving 1st or 2:1s No Other (please give details in Description column) 37% 47% 50% 52% 52% 52% Alongside applicant and entrant targets, we encourage you to provide targets around outreach and student success work (including collaborative work where appropriate) or other initiatives to illustrate your progress towards increasing access, student success and progression. These should be measurable outcomes ‐based targets and should focus on the number of beneficiaries reached by a particular activity/programme or the number of schools worked with, and what the outcomes were, rather than simply recording the nature/number of activities.
Table 7a. Statistical targets and milestones relating to your applicants, entrants or student body Reference number Please select target type from the drop-down menu Description (500 characters maximum) Is this a collaborative target? Baseline year Baseline data Yearly milestones (numeric where possible, however you may use text) Commentary on your milestones/targets or textual description where numerical description is not appropriate (500 characters maximum)