In 2007, the UUK-led Burgess Review declared the current honours system ‘not fit for purpose’. Designed long ago when a tiny number of institutions were awarding a tiny number of degrees, its use in 2011 looks at best to be a very odd anachronism and at worst; a dangerously out of date and inappropriate way of measuring and awarding student achievement. The Burgess review outlined a litany of problems with the system;
- All summative judgements make students and employers focus on perceived ‘end point’ rather than opening them to the concept of a range of different types and levels of achievement, which are each part of an ongoing process of learning that will continue beyond the attainment of their degree.
- The present system cannot capture achievement in some key areas of interest to students and employers and many employers could be missing out on the skills and experience of potential recruits merely because these students had not attained a First/Upper Second.
- The focus on the top two degree classes wrongly reinforces an impression that a Lower Second or a Third Class degree is not an achievement when, in fact students with such degrees have met the standard required for honours degree level, graduate qualifications.
And the list goes on. The summative nature of the honours system is seen as the main offender and no longer appropriate for a modern higher education sector. Despite years of work on this, Professor Burgess was always going to have an uphill struggle convincing people to abandon the system that although flawed, remains comfortingly familiar to institutions.
The Burgess work wasn’t lost altogether though, the Higher Education Achievement Record (HEAR) was born as sort of compromise solution that wouldn’t offend too many people and might add something to existing degree classifications with the inclusion of wider data. But it hasn’t exactly set the world on fire and is certainly not a solution to our broken system of degree classification.
The Burgess Review also looked at many alternative systems and found almost all of them lacking in some respect. Grade Point Average (GPA) was considered, but rejected on the basis that its summative nature merely replicated many of the existing problems of the UK. And of course it was riddled with its own flaws, inconsistencies and misinterpretations that all such systems are subject to.
So it was with some surprise last week when UCL announced that it was abandoning the honours system and adopting GPA. Malcolm Grant cited degree inflation, and international recognition of UK degrees as key reasons for the change. This is a bold move, whatever your view of the current system. UCL is gambling very heavily on the power of its own brand to enable future graduates to use GPA when applying for jobs with employers who are used to the old honours system. Grant will likely also have some difficulty bringing his institution along with him on this – not least from students who understand the existing system and will be expecting to graduate with an old-fashioned First Class degree.
However, Grant is right that degree inflation needs to be tackled. But GPA is not immune to the same problem, and as a system it may well not suit every type of university. There is a need for reform, but there is quite possibly no single off-the-peg solution that UK HE can adopt. It will be interesting to see if others follow UCL’s lead – most likely some will – probably from the Russell Group, but there will never be enough appetite across the sector that GPA needs for a wholesale adoption.
It would be unfortunate if in a few years’ time, there were multiple systems of degree classification deployed in the UK. It would be confusing to students and employers, and would not help the international recognition of UK degrees – something that UCL is trying to address with this move.
And with the sector currently facing a barrage of Government-led reform, it seems unlikely that there could be a consensus created around the need for renewed sector-led reform to degree classifications. Not to mention the strong support for an alternative that would need to be generated before it could be considered for implementation.
The sector chose not to tackle this problem head-on when the sun was shining in 2007. There wasn’t the required leadership then, and it we are no closer to having it now. There is a real danger that different parts of the sector will drift towards different systems. This will result in creating an even more divided and complicated sector in a time when disruption and uncertainty is in no short supply. During this time of immense machination over Government proposals, UCL has reminded us the extent of the power that still remains with universities. Maybe it’s time for all of us to use it.
I’d figured that the switch to GPA was an attempt to market to the top tier of international students – who would otherwise be looking at US providers (where GPA – another rubbish system, surely you’d expect student performance to *improve* over a course and thus a straight average would be pretty useless – is pretty much ingrained).
@dkernohan True point, although I’d hope that course design would take this into account.. ‘Bio 101’ being appropriate for beginners and testing at that level and so on. In the UK we require two major intellectual jumps from HE students – one at the start of first year and one at the start of second year when marks begin to count and a uniform standard is imposed despite the level of intellectual development of the individual student. If UCL’s GPA system is merely replicating this practice but with finer gradation, I don’t see that it really helps the student at all, only the employers and admissions tutors who are trying to separate the good from the only-OK.