Introduction: A subtle change with big implications
The 2025 Higher Education Students Early Statistics (HESES 25) return introduces a major shift in how subjects are reported for funding purposes. While the mechanics might look straightforward, moving from broad price groups to 58 detailed subject groupings, the implications for funding, planning, and internal reporting are far-reaching.
This post explores what’s changing, why it matters, and how providers can position themselves to adapt.
From price groups to subject groupings
Historically, HESES relied on a small number of price groups (A–D) to inform funding allocations.
From HESES 25 onward, the OfS requires providers to report using 58 subject groupings, aligned more closely with the OfS’s subject-based funding model and broader policy aims around skills and growth.
Key differences:
- Providers must map student engagements to the new 58 categories rather than just a handful of price groups.
- The OfS will use these subject groupings to inform the distribution of high-cost funding, particularly for teaching in strategic subject areas.
- These groupings are designed to offer greater transparency on where public money supports higher-cost provision.
Why it matters:
This change increases the granularity of the data that underpins funding. Providers will need to ensure their internal course-to-subject mappings are accurate and sustainable as course portfolios evolve.
New and redefined subject areas
One of the most notable adjustments is the creation of Price Group C1.3, which separates disciplines such as media studies, journalism, publishing, and information services from the broader C1.2 group.
This refinement reflects OfS recognition that certain creative and professional subjects sit between traditional “high-cost” and “classroom-based” provision.
Other subtle re-groupings affect areas like computing, psychology, and architecture – subjects that increasingly straddle STEM and creative boundaries.
Why this matters for strategy:
- Funding envelopes may shift as a result of how these disciplines are classified.
- Cross-disciplinary or modular courses may now span multiple subject groupings, requiring careful internal reconciliation.
- Marketing and portfolio planning teams should understand how subject coding affects future resource allocation.
Strategic implications for providers
The move to subject-level granularity could influence decisions across multiple areas:
1. Portfolio planning:
With 58 distinct groupings, providers can model the financial implications of expanding or contracting specific subject areas. This data could inform conversations about course sustainability or growth areas linked to regional skills priorities.
2. Internal data structures:
Systems that previously stored only price-group information will now need to record the specific OfS subject grouping. Accurate mapping between course codes, HECoS codes, and subject groups will be critical.
3. Reporting alignment:
The new approach brings HESES closer to the Student record structure, encouraging a more integrated view of data across returns. Providers who align these datasets early will save significant reconciliation effort later.
4. Funding analysis and forecasting:
Finance and planning teams can use the new groupings to model scenarios under future OfS or DfE funding priorities, especially as funding becomes more targeted towards high-cost or high-demand disciplines.
Practical steps to prepare
- Audit your course-to-subject mapping – confirm that each course sits in the correct OfS subject grouping and that staff understand the basis for this classification.
- Engage academic departments early – help them see how their subject coding can affect funding and how future curriculum changes should be reported.
- Integrate the new categories into internal dashboards – link HESES, HESA Student, and finance data to visualise subject-level trends.
- Model future funding scenarios – use the new subject groupings to explore how changes in recruitment or course mix might affect high-cost allocations.
- Document assumptions – as with any HESES process, maintain a clear audit trail explaining how mapping decisions were made.
Conclusion: Turning compliance into strategy
The HESES 25 subject-grouping changes are more than a reporting adjustment; they signal a continued push for granular, subject-level funding insight. Providers who treat this as a strategic data opportunity, rather than an administrative burden, will be better positioned to respond to future funding policy shifts and to demonstrate the value of their provision in key subject areas.