Universities in England recently committed to returning to pre-pandemic levels of Firsts and 2:1s awarded by 2023.
But tackling grade inflation isn’t simple. While we need to protect quality, we must also close awarding gaps and take advantage of digital innovations.
The pandemic was challenging for students. Universities changed policies so that students were not unfairly disadvantaged. However, the proportion of First and 2:1s awarded reached 82% in 2020–21, a jump of 6 percentage points on 2018–19.
The proportion of First and 2:1s awarded reached 82% in 2020–21.
These temporary policies were appropriate and students should feel proud of their achievements. But it’s clear that if universities don’t move away from these policies now we’re out of lockdowns, we risk undermining the value of and confidence in degrees.
As part of our commitment, universities will publish degree outcomes statements and set out how they will return to levels of Firsts and 2:1s awarded from before the pandemic. We’re also asking universities to reengage with commitments paused during the pandemic, such as on degree algorithm design.
In their statements, universities can present evidence to explain their trends, including where they may not see a complete return to pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2023.
Of course, we cannot return completely to the pre-pandemic world. Higher education has changed. Universities can and should reflect on positive changes, including how digital learning has innovated teaching, learning and assessment and the impact of this on reducing awarding gaps. We must, however, ensure emergency measures don’t have a long-term inflationary effect.
In late 2022, we’ll publish a list of universities’ statements to evidence the sector's collective work.
An unexpected positive outcome of the pandemic was the closing of awarding gaps.
For example, the ethnicity degree awarding gap means that white students are more likely to be awarded Firsts and 2:1s in their degrees than Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) students. This gap reduced from 13.2% in 2017–18 to 8.8% in 2020–21.
Universities are investing resources through their access and participation plans to close awarding gaps. We often hear concerns of a tension between this work and that to tackle grade inflation.
Policy makers need to recognise that an increase in upper degree awards is not always a bad thing.
But it’s possible to ensure quality while making progress on closing awarding gaps. Where universities can evidence that their awards have increased due to activity to close awarding gaps, they should explain this in their degree outcome statements.
Recent analysis from the Office for Students (OfS) suggests that if awarding gaps closed, the sector would still have unexplained grade inflation. However, models like this assume that students who enter university with lower grades or who are of particular ethnicities cannot achieve First class degrees in high numbers.
Given the OfS' regulation elsewhere focuses on 'good outcomes' for students, policy makers need to recognise that an increase in upper degree awards is not always a bad thing.
There is no ‘correct’ proportion at which universities should award upper degrees, and nor should there be. That’s because in the UK we are committed to criterion referencing.
This approach means all students who meet a given standard are awarded a mark reflecting that. In higher education, degree classification descriptors describe what it means to achieve a First, 2:1, 2:2 and a Third.
The alternative is called norm referencing. With this approach, a student’s award is based on comparisons with other students. It would mean the highest achiever would receive the highest award even if in other years they would have ranked much lower.
There is no ‘correct’ proportion at which universities should award upper degrees, and nor should there be.
Criterion referencing is preferred in higher education because it rewards students who perform well regardless of others’ performances. It doesn’t set limits on how many students can achieve a ‘good outcome’. It therefore supports the OfS’ position that all students should be able to achieve positive outcomes.
It also allows for comparison between cohorts, subjects and providers so that awards are fair and not the result of the ‘luck’ of the peer group a student happens to be in. Students know what they need to do to get the top marks, can track their performance, and can be fairly awarded.
Grade inflation is anything but simple. And there are still questions we need to ask ourselves in the higher education sector, such as:
Our commitment puts forward a sector-owned solution to grapple with these challenges.
But the higher education sector should reflect on these questions to make sure the grade classification system continues to hold the confidence of students, employers and the public.
