The UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment (UKSCQA) has released a consultation document for the sector on Degree Classification. All HEIs are invited to respond by the deadline of 8 February 2019. The consultation follows the report from UUK, GuildHE and QAA: Degree classification: transparent, consistent and fair academic standards which was published in November 2018 and considered the factors behind the increasing numbers of graduates receiving first and upper second class degrees.

The Vice Principal (Academic and Educational Innovation), in consultation with other senior colleagues, has provided comment on the Degree Classification Consultation to the Russell Group which is formulating a Group response to the consultation. This included the following:

• The University would be supportive, in principle, of the proposal for universities to make a statement of intent to protect the value of our qualifications (Consultation page 3 and questions 1, 2, 4, 9 & 10); however more information would be needed on the proposed content of such statements to gain a fuller understanding of the level of detail expected. We would want to avoid a prescriptive emphasis in this exercise, which should instead provide the opportunity for institutions to explain their regulatory frameworks and thereby provide reassurance on the maintenance of academic standards across the sector.

• In terms of the framework presented in Section A of the Consultation, clarity would be required on the reference to subject benchmarks in relation to degree outcomes, and we would also seek assurance that the statement of intent, including the sections on marking practices and equalities assessments, would be focussed at institutional level rather than seeking subject/discipline level granularity.
• The proposed creation of an institutional external advisor on academic standards is not supported (Section B, Q6). The model of a single academic advisor on academic standards is not considered appropriate or even feasible in any broad based institution, and the level of potential power for this position is considered to be disproportionate. Providers have arrangements in place for analysing external examiners’ reports and identifying cross-cutting themes or trends.
• In terms of strengthening the external examining process (Section C, Qs 7&8), further information is required in order to clarify how the strengthening would be achieved. We are sceptical about any proposal to provide standard training for external examiners from a centralised third party given the current lack of detail on content, format and cost of any such provision. More generally, there is an issue of where the locus of control of the external examining system sits and we would not be in favour of any move away from sectoral ownership.
• There are concerns of a risk to institutional autonomy if a sector-wide approach is adopted as discussed in Section D (see also Q15, 16 &17). In particular, we consider that any pressure to standardise elements of the degree awarding process across the sector would inevitably impact on curricular structures which we strongly believe require autonomy to allow diversity and innovation to flourish.
• The proposed classification descriptions (Section E, Annex A) are not considered particularly useful as there is concern that these imply a uniformity of skills in each sub-section across students/graduates that does not exist. There is also lack of recognition that graduates from different disciplines will have different levels of competency in some of the aspects included in the descriptors. Any publication of such descriptors would need to include a clear statement that these are indicative only.
• There is also concern that an inappropriate use of benchmarking (Section E) could encourage a focus on achieving norms rather than institutions attempting to genuinely improve student performance. Suggestions around a calibration metric are also concerning in that previous metrics deployed for the TEF have been relatively blunt instruments of limited use. The wrong type of metric could have negative unintended consequences and it would not be appropriate to ask external examiners to reference judgements against such a metric.
• In reference to league tables (Q18) we do not believe that the sector, or the Russell Group, should drive the league table agenda. It is important to demonstrate that our procedures maintain academic quality and standards and are independent, and not driven by league table performance.
• The various options for reform suggested in Q20 are not supported as we do not believe that these will address the grade inflation issue or that they would be good for the sector as a whole.

ASC is invited to consider the consultation document along with the above responses from the University, and provide comment to inform the University’s final response to the consultation.

Taking account of the response to the Russell Group, information from ASC and the Deans of Learning & Teaching, the Senate Office will prepare the University’s response to the consultation and submit it by the deadline.

None identified at this stage.

Response due by 8 February 2019.

None identified.