|
|
|
From:
|
Ginny Murphy
|
|
To:
|
2011 Census
|
|
Posted:
|
February 21, 2013 11:11 AM
|
|
Subject:
|
RE:Comparing qualifications 2001 and 2011
|
|
Message:
|
|
|
I'd also support having tables for 16-74 (and preferably economically active too) for qualifications. 16 and over on this particular measure is pretty irrelevant for most purposes and is out of step with the other labour market related tables.
Show Original Message
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 13-02-2013 12:27
From: Greg Ball
Subject: Comparing qualifications 2001 and 2011
There seem to be at least 2 hurdles to comparing the highest level of qualifications data in 2001 and 2011
1. 2001 data was for the 16-74 age group, whereas 2011 in Key Statistics in for 16 and over. From 2001 it is clear that qualifications are much rarer in the older age groups. Is ONS going to issue an age breakdown that will allow 16-74 to be obtained for 201?. If not would it be fair to use the 65-74 age group data from 2001 to model qualification numbers for those aged 75 or older in 2011 on the basis that those aged 65-74 in 2001 who survive will be aged 75-84 in 2011, and few are likely to have gained qualifications in the intervening years? The rates could be applied to those aged 85+. This could allow data for the 2011 16-74 age group to be estimated.
2. How comparable are the classifications of qualifications in 2001 and 2011. In particular, where would the new category of apprenticeships have been classed in 2001?
|
|
Be the first person to recommend this.
|