What the report is for
Reviewers use the report as a map: it tells them what to check and where to look. For the institution it is a chance to find gaps before an external panel does. A good report is honest, specific and backed by evidence; it does not need to describe a perfect institution.
The eight Higher Education domains
Work through each domain in turn. The questions below are practical prompts to get you started. They are not the formal standards text.
1. Institutional Governance & Strategy
Who governs the institution, how are decisions made and recorded, and how is the strategy monitored and updated?
2. Programme Design & Learning Outcomes
How are programmes designed and approved, how do learning outcomes map to teaching and assessment, and how are they reviewed?
3. Research Environment & Output
What research or scholarly activity does the institution support, how is it resourced, and what does it produce?
4. Faculty Qualifications & Development
How are staff recruited, qualified and developed, and how is teaching quality assured?
5. Student Admission & Support Services
How are students admitted fairly, and what academic, welfare and career support is available to them?
6. Quality Assurance Processes
What internal quality processes exist, who owns them, and what changed as a result of the last review cycle?
7. Internationalization & Partnerships
What partnerships, exchanges or collaborations exist, how are they governed, and what value do they bring?
8. Graduate Employability & Impact
What happens to graduates, how do employers and alumni feedback shape programmes, and how is impact tracked?
How to write each section
- Describe, then judge. Say what happens in practice, then rate how well it works and why.
- Cite evidence. Reference specific documents, data or examples rather than general claims.
- Name weaknesses. Reviewers trust reports that identify gaps and show an improvement plan.
- Be consistent. Numbers, names and dates should match across the report and the evidence.
- Involve people. Staff, students and leadership should all contribute and review the draft.
Common mistakes
- Listing policies without showing they are used.
- Rating every domain at the top of the scale with no supporting reasoning.
- Leaving the report to one person at the last minute.
- Uploading evidence that does not match what the report says.
- Including named salary data or individual health records. Use anonymised or aggregated figures.
Where it fits in the SAC process
The self-evaluation is step 2 of the seven-step SAC process. It is paced by the applicant, so allow two to four weeks or more. Evidence follows in step 3, and all evidence needed for the decision must be in before the site visit. Check eligibility and the evidence list first, and see the standards for the domain overview.