Datamaster Stuart Palmer (recently ex Deakin U) recognises what the QILT can cover. The Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching includes 600 records of large-scale student perceptions of graduate employment outcomes. The data is readily available and statistically worth the analytic effort. “It would be an interesting model of the factors contributing to graduate outcomes nationally,” he adds (via Twitter, March 1).

So why not? Probably because universities are not collectively keen on QILT, what with the way its results do not support some marketing messages.

Ratings agency QS makes a similar point in a new survey of the international student market for Australia and New Zealand; “the success of QILT as a widely-used objective rating of teaching quality depends on university marketers, who are best-placed to promulgate it to prospective international students. It is potentially a powerful resource for international students, but there is a collective responsibility to raise awareness.”