Grade inflation and student outcomes

The opinions expressed in this blog are my own.

In September 2018, I attended a very sensible UUK roundtable discussion on the topic of standards, transparency and consistency of degree classifications, after which we were sent a consultation document from UKSCQA on which the sector is asked to respond. The report produced after the roundtable discussions took place, and on which the consultation is based, is thorough and highlights that there is a considerable “unexplainable” element to the increase in “good honours” degrees. By “unexplainable” the report means not linked to “input” factors such as student characteristics, prior attainment, etc. However, we noted in our discussion that there are many other reasons why degree classifications can legitimately increase – including quality of teaching, higher motivation of students, impact of higher fees and steeper employability competition.

Like it or not, there is still a spotlight on the spectre of “grade inflation” and a sense of public mistrust that an increase in good honours degrees simply reflects higher attainment.  As a sector, we have to face up to this perception and be prepared to defend our academic standards – this far I agree with the sentiment of the consultation document. I think the UKSQA has done a good job on a difficult task; it is extremely difficult to come up with a solution to this issue, which both wins public trust and maintains academic autonomy, which is at the heart of university academic culture and tradition.

I support most of the proposals in the consultation because I think they will help to demonstrate the sector’s willingness to step up on this issue - something I think we do need to do, and indeed will be expected to do by the Office for Students (OfS) (condition B4 of registration). I particularly support:

• The transparent publication of degree algorithms. In particular, I think institutions should have to defend the practice of discounting low performance modules (other than for mitigating circumstances).
• The suggestion to remove or reduce the impact of including upper degrees in league table algorithms. If there is any truth to the accusations of “gaming” degree classifications, then surely the inclusion of this metric in league tables risks incentivising such behaviour in some parts of the sector.
• A wider review of degree classifications and associated information to ensure graduates receive appropriate credit for their achievements and to help employers make informed decisions about the educational achievement of graduate applicants. I don't think this should be as complicated as the HEAR proposed a few years ago but an obligation to provide a full academic transcript, with some commonality would go a long way. This won’t be an easy task but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Despite my support for the above, there is one aspect of the consultation I am less supportive of and would like to propose an alternative approach (which I think may be coming anyway). I simply don't think each institution producing a “degree outcomes statement” is going to cut it. When reading through the consultation document I found myself asking two fundamental questions: 1) who would read such a document? and 2) would it be enough to assure that grade inflation was not an issue?

As I counted off on my fingers who would read and be reassured by a degree outcomes statement, I couldn't think of many….

• Prospective students and parents/advisers? I don't think so. This would be yet another piece of information in the ever-growing jigsaw that pertains to inform people making choice about where to study.
• Current students? Again, I doubt it, unless there was a specific academic decision they found wanting.
• Employers? Once again, I am sceptical that they would have time or inclination to sift through 100+ degree outcomes statement to better understand the 100s of graduate job applications they were assessing.
• The Media? The general public? …. I keep coming up with the same answer – they probably won’t read them and therefore what value would they serve?

If they are not going to be widely read, they won’t increase public confidence. Neither can they be a good use of our time or represent value for money for students if this is the case.

However, I can most definitely see the regulator taking an interest in the statements and delving into what the detail means and this is where I think there is an alternative approach which would be more effective. In accordance with their risk-based approach, the OfS has the apparatus and the remit to investigate where the data suggests there might be anomalies, and let’s face it, the OfS is going to monitor degree outcomes data anyway – both the recently published data strategy (para 66 if you are interested) and “Analysis of degree classifications over time” report make this very clear. For now, the OfS is putting it in our hands to do something to reduce the unexplained differences in attainment, but the report holds a stark warning that they will use the full range of regulatory powers to intervene should they need to.

So, instead of us all simply accepting another burden in the name of transparency and consistency, I think this is an area where we should welcome a data-driven, targeted, risk-based approach from the OfS. Let the metrics identify possible anomalies and allow OfS to engage meaningfully with those institutions. In defining those metrics, the sector and OfS should work together to make sure that fair, meaningful and consistent metrics are being used across data sets. Through these engagements, the sector can invite the OfS to come and have a conversation with us about what factors impact grade profile in our institutions. The proposed degree outcomes statement could well be the basis of that conversation, but under my suggested approach, institutions would only produce the information where the data suggests an explanation is needed. And wouldn't it be nice if the conversation could be about what is going well just as much as what could be going wrong? I think the OfS could use this as an opportunity to better understand the sector and grade profiles; to learn about the different ways in which universities teach, support and assess their students and the impact this has on their outcomes.

If the conversations between the OfS and universities reveal evidence of grade inflation, then the OfS has the apparatus to put a registration condition on an institution - we don't need to invent another process. And more positively, where the conversations reveal genuine improvements in attainment, let’s celebrate, promote and share the good practice that has led to it. Finding out more about the intangible aspects of university education and experience that can lead to the best possible outcomes for students is supposed to be at the heart of what the OfS wants to do. This seems like a golden opportunity to focus efforts on identifying good practice rather than proliferating a load of additional documents which detract from other activity and do not represent value for money for students.

So, I agree that the sector should take ownership of this issue and be prepared to take action to increase public confidence in the integrity of its academic standards, but I also think that the sector should speak out against additional burden that adds little or no value. Instead we should use this as an opportunity to shape a framework whereby the sector can work in partnership with the OfS to better identify, understand, celebrate and promote those things that improve the chances for good student outcomes.