IT WILL BE DEMONSTRATED THAT A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE STUG YIELDS A TWO-FOLD IMPROVEMENT FOR DURHAM UNIVERSITY: ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND INCREASED DIVERSITY BY ALL RELEVENT INDICATORS. SCOPE & BREADTH OF DATA PRESENTED: Established in 1993 and both funded and supported by universities across the UK [APPENDIX: D] the Higher Education Statistics Agency houses a significant body of data pertaining to university demographics – indeed, HESA tracks performance indicators, finance, enrollment, student achievement at all levels, faculty demographics, and a wide range of other very useful information [see: APPENDIX: B-C; E - F]. For the STUG, the HESA is the source for a number of their key indicators in regard to how they compare one university in the UK against the next [APPENDIX C]. The following analysis is dependent upon both the various university guides such as the STUG, the Guardian annual survey and the Complete University Guide, but also the annual key indicators that are accumulated and presented at HESA. The details of the analysis will be comparative as far as including both the newspaper distillation of the HESA information ( and beyond the HESA too), with particular attention paid to the STUG, but also the HESA in its raw and more expansive form. METHODOLOGY: There is both qualitative and quantitative methods employed in this analysis. First, the data stated in the previous section will be compared in terms of key performance indicators. In numerical or quantitative terms, significant improvements, changes or declines will be noted and presented. Particular focus will be paid to the indicators that are Durham specific, however, it is difficult to isolate Durham University when considering notable differences over time. Thus, as a comparative analysis, Durham's performance and progress will be evaluated over and against both the national average in the UK and also, other universities that have a similar scale, academic agenda or other variables that correspond which are noteworthy. The concluding sections of this analysis will be qualitative in method, and the closing recommendations and formal conclusions will focus on how the data presented can be accommodated into a marketing strategy. What are the limitations to the conclusions made by SLUG when compared with other data, and other comparative guides, and therefore, what key messages can be drawn from the quantitative information? 1. DEMOGRAPHIC & QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW: Durham University STUDENT& FACULTY DEMOGRAPHICS: The history of Durham University is as medieval as Cambridge or Oxford [APPENDIX G ] . However, it is the present and the future that most concerns this analysis. In the Academic Year 2009 to 2010 Durham University had the following demographic make-up. There were 11,175 undergraduates and a total of 4,593 postgraduate students at Durham for the same academic period. In terms of the composition of students and the break down of the faculties and departments, at the level of Undergraduate studies there were in the Social Sciences and Health, there was a total of 4,630 students. Overall, that is the largest academic area at Durham. In size, this is followed by the faculty of Science which had a total of 3,950 students.