Common reports catalog
A practical catalog of institutional reporting questions — pass rates, grade distributions, headcounts, exam attempts, and how they map to University Statistics or the Report Builder.
This catalog helps registrars, program coordinators, and institutional research staff choose the right Statistics Center approach for common university questions. It does not invent new Fuxam screens — it maps real institutional needs to the two channels you already have: University Statistics for formal schema exports, and Your Reports (Report Builder) for flexible internal analysis.
Use it when someone asks for “the pass rate,” “headcount by cohort,” or “what we submit for Prüfungsstatistik” and you need a clear starting point.
Why a catalog helps
Universities re-ask the same reporting questions every term. Without a shared catalog, each faculty builds slightly different spreadsheets, filters drift, and accreditation evidence becomes hard to reproduce. Encoding the question once as a saved report — with required filters for term or cohort — keeps answers consistent and auditable.
How it fits
| Channel | Best for | Not ideal for |
|---|---|---|
| University Statistics | Formal Prüfungsstatistik / Studierendenstatistik (or your country’s schemas) | Ad hoc faculty charts, one-off cohort lists |
| Your Reports | Pass rates, distributions, averages, headcounts, attempt lists | National schema compliance |
| Course analytics | Teaching engagement in one LMS course | Cross-program institutional statistics |
Key concepts for shaping results
| Concept | How it changes the answer |
|---|---|
| Row grain | One row per student, membership, exam attempt, or aggregate group — choose deliberately |
| Filter | Limits the population (term, program, cohort, date range) |
| Required filter | Forces every runner to pick a scope before results appear |
| Group by | Collapses rows into modules, cohorts, or programs |
| Aggregation | Counts and averages (where supported) for rates and means |
| Can view vs Can export | See results in Fuxam vs download CSV/Excel — see Share a report |
Catalog: enrollment and headcount
| Question | Recommended approach | Shape the report |
|---|---|---|
| How many students are enrolled this term? | Template Cohort enrollment overview, or data source on cohort memberships | Filter by organization term / cohort; summarize with count per program if needed |
| Who is in a specific intake? | Template Program intake roster | Use the required date-range filter for the intake period |
| Do we have a searchable student list? | Template Student directory | Optional filters by program or status; prefer Can view for broad roles |
| How does headcount compare across programs? | Start from scratch; join study program and membership entities | Group by program; aggregate counts |
Catalog: exams, grades, and attempts
| Question | Recommended approach | Shape the report |
|---|---|---|
| What is the pass / fail rate for a module? | Custom report joined to exam or grade entities from My Exams data | Filter to module and term; group by module; count pass vs fail outcomes |
| What does the grade distribution look like? | Custom report with grade fields | Filter to cohort or module; group by grade band or grade value; count |
| What is the average grade per module or cohort? | Custom report with Summarize | Group by module or cohort; use average aggregation where supported |
| How many exam attempts did students use? | Custom report on attempt-related exam records | One row per attempt or per student; filter by exam type / term; count attempts |
| Are grades ready for national exam statistics? | Investigate gaps with a custom report; then run University Statistics | Confirm published grades in My Exams before Prüfungsstatistik |
Catalog: German and regulatory statistics
| Question | Recommended approach | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| What do we submit as Prüfungsstatistik? | University Statistics — statistics type Prüfungsstatistik | Formal exam statistics schema for German configurations |
| What do we submit as Studierendenstatistik? | University Statistics — statistics type Studierendenstatistik | Formal student population / enrollment schema |
| Can we check the same population internally first? | Custom enrollment or exam report with the same term filters | Use for quality control; the formal file still comes from University Statistics |
| Why is a program missing from the export? | Review study program statistics inclusion in Programs and planning | Continuing education programs are not included in university statistics |
Other countries show different Statistics type options based on institution configuration. The workflow — type, year, semesters, readiness, export — is the same.
Worked examples (strategy)
Pass / fail rates for a faculty board
- Prefer a summary report (grouped by module), not a student-level roster, for board materials.
- Filter to the relevant term and faculty programs.
- Share with Can view for board support staff; grant Can export only to the person assembling the pack.
- Re-run each term with the same required filters so figures stay comparable.
Grade distribution by cohort
- Start from exam or grade entities; join user or cohort data if you need cohort labels.
- Filter to one cohort and term.
- Group by grade (or grade band) and count.
- Keep a detail report privately for the exam office if they need to drill into individuals.
Average grade per module
- Use Summarize with Group by module.
- Apply average aggregation on the grade field where supported.
- Exclude incomplete or unpublished results via filters if your process requires only final grades — coordinate with Publish grades timing.
Enrollment headcount vs Studierendenstatistik
- Use a cohort enrollment custom report for internal planning meetings.
- Use University Statistics Studierendenstatistik for the official submission after readiness is clean.
- Do not treat an internal headcount CSV as a substitute for the schema export when the receiving body expects the formal format.
Data protection checklist for common reports
| Practice | Why |
|---|---|
| Required filters on term / cohort | Prevents full-population downloads by default |
| Summary reports for leadership | Fewer personal identifiers in circulation |
| Can view before Can export | Offline files are harder to control |
| Align exports with retention rules | Spreadsheets outside Fuxam still fall under data protection |
| Separate formal schema files from internal working copies | Clear audit trail for regulatory submissions |
Best practices
- Name reports after the question they answer — for example, “Pass rate by module — WS2026” — not after the builder who created them.
- Maintain one canonical report per recurring question; duplicate when a faculty needs a scoped variant.
- Document intended audience and filter assumptions in the report Description.
- For accreditation, Save execution on the Report tab so you retain a point-in-time snapshot.
Common pitfalls
| Pitfall | Consequence | Avoidance |
|---|---|---|
| Using University Statistics for a faculty chart | Awkward schema columns; hard to reshape | Build a custom summary report instead |
| Student-level export for a pass-rate meeting | Unnecessary personal data exposure | Group and aggregate; share view-only |
| Mixing terms in one run | Non-comparable rates | Required filter for a single term |
| Comparing internal headcount to formal Studierendenstatistik without checking scope | Apparent “mismatches” | Confirm program inclusion and semester selection |
FAQ
Are these exact report templates in Fuxam?
Student directory, Cohort enrollment overview, and Program intake roster are documented built-in templates. Other catalog rows describe common questions you answer by configuring data source, joins, filters, and summarization — not separate named product screens.
Where do pass rates come from?
From institutional exam and grade records maintained in My Exams and related academic data — not from LMS visit analytics.
Should every faculty build its own pass-rate report?
Prefer one institution-owned definition shared with Can view, or a controlled set of duplicates with the same structure and different program filters. Drift between unofficial copies undermines accreditation evidence.