Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

... to think education in this country has gone in the wrong direction?

58 replies

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 23/08/2019 15:38

www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2019/08/great-university-con-how-british-degree-lost-its-value

Inspired by this New Statesman article by Harry Lambert.

This summer, a department at the University of Sheffield sent an email to students. A group of them had complained about their marks for an end-of-year essay. While a few had received Firsts, these students were given 2:2s and Thirds. “Thank you for raising the issue,” began the email, “and thank you also for your patience.” After reflection, the head of department and the director of “learning and teaching” had decided that, “our normal procedures… failed us. For this we apologise unreservedly”. The department had decided to “uplift all the marks… less at the top and more at the bottom”. The poorly performing students had their marks raised by nearly 40 per cent. The few who had done well saw their marks barely change. “Again, our apologies,” the message concluded, “but we hope that this is a satisfactory resolution.”

It's not just Sheffield. All universities are in thrall to students. As the article states, many students are accustomed to being spoon fed from the exam-focused school system. They arrive at university with poor standards of literacy and numeracy, not much experience of reading widely, thinking critically or motivating themselves, but high expectations of what they should be awarded for their money and the doors this will open for them. When they don't get what they want or expect, they complain and the university management fall over themselves to put things right. (Obviously, not all students are like this, but a dispiriting number are - I used to work in a university and saw first-hand the disproportionate focus on student whinges, sorry, complaints.)

I was a student nearly 40 years ago. Things were very different then. It was sink or swim and undoubtedly some people sank. Standards of teaching were not always very good and teaching was low priority for academics compared to research. There was virtually no pastoral care, nor did most students expect any. Drop out rates were high. Accommodation was basic. But the huge, huge benefit we had was that we weren't going to emerge from our undergraduate studies loaded down with debt, and if we managed to complete them, our degrees were really worth something.

The proportion of students getting “good honours” – a First or 2:1 – has leapt from 47 to 79 per cent ... He doesn't say over what time period but I've found another source that says in 1996-7 just over half of students got a First or 2.1. In the year I graduated I think it was well below that. A 2.2 was a perfectly respectable result then. Given that 50% of the population now go to university, has there been some miracle making the UK's young people hugely more intelligent than previous generations? I'm afraid I don't think so.

I wish we could start again. Play-based learning for the very young children, no formal education to 6 or 7, no SATS, far fewer public exams in school, a broad-based curriculum all the way through with a highly educated, trained and regarded body of well-paid teachers delivering it. Decent vocational and technical education/training, with no snobbery about those who choose to go down that route instead of university.

OP posts:
woman19 · 23/08/2019 23:08

Not HE, but this is one example:

Rebecca Dobbs*, a senior school leader, knows of one academy trust in her area that removed “almost all the senior leaders” at a school because they had disagreed with the trust about breaches of exams rules. “I’ve been told by staff who had to sign NDAs that some pupils sat their maths GCSE in the head’s office and were fed answers. Their NDAs state they mustn’t say anything,” she says

www.theguardian.com/education/2019/aug/06/gagging-orders-muzzle-teachers-blow-whistle-exam-cheating

NDAs are silencing a lot of people in public services. Especially right now.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 24/08/2019 08:00

Shock Angry Sad

OP posts:
demelza82 · 24/08/2019 08:38

YABU - the truth is there is lots of denigration of higher education in order to make sure only the wealthiest enjoy it. Similar issue with the largely unspoken colossal rise in student fees over a short period of time.

DrPeppersPhD · 24/08/2019 09:12

Maybe I've just got a really good cohort, but that would never ever happen on my course. You can apply for extensions, and extenuating circumstances if appropriate, but once the mark is there, the mark is there (apart from one test I did where the lecturer added it up wrong, that got changed).

MirrorHope · 24/08/2019 09:13

I come from a very working class background - state school educated - first generation to go to uni - grew up in an incredibly deprived city - lots of addiction issues in family etc etc

I went to a rebrick uni and finished 2 points off a 2:1 in a very hard degree. I took it really badly and didn't know what to do I went along to the graduation and just went along with it.

I realised there were possibly 10-15 people missing from the Graduation - I later learned they had got 2:2s and 3rds and had appealed and as they were appealing would graduate at Xmas and all had their grades upped!!! I wasn't aware you could appeal!

My 2:2 has held me back to an extent - but I still got interviews at the right organisations because it was a tough degree ( this is coming up to 20 years ago). What actually let me down is my background as back then I just didn't have the softer skills to get through the interviews - the biggest holiday I had as a kid was Blackpool beach just didn't have the life experience to talk about - back then the interview questions were very experience focussed and I didn't have the life examples.

So this makes me very frustrated even to this day...

ForalltheSaints · 24/08/2019 09:21

I agree with the OP.

The start seemed to be the reforms of the late 1980s- calling polys universities, the National Curriculum (idea good in principle but not in practice) and GCSEs.

SnuggyBuggy · 24/08/2019 10:40

Now it's just the done thing for young people from wealthy backgrounds to go to uni. As a society we might in theory want less to go and just the brightest but how many of these middle class parents would gracefully accept that their own kids might not make the cut under this system?

woman19 · 24/08/2019 10:44

The start came in 1992 with the formation of the Further and Higher Education Council, which took these public services out of public accountability structures and led them to be 'managed' by unaccountable quangoes.

Opportunity for lots of corruption in FE and HE started then and has just escalated.

Parents and and kids now physically paying absolute fortunes to fund the gangsta capitalism with fantastic marketing, that is now HE.

EU neighbours (except Hungary) regard HE, a pubic service as a public service:

That's why their kids are so well educated and unstressed by debt.

And doing jobs, British kids can't afford the education for.

(Until priti patels abhorrent brexist deportations start)

BoneyBackJefferson · 24/08/2019 10:55

I know its been mentioned (barely) but the requirement to pay tuition fees and all the rest has had a huge influence over this.

In the past you could (almost) become a career student. fees paid, housing benefit, income support etc. but now it is a one shot deal, with some uni's charging the absolute maximum fees and people expect to get their money's worth out of the universities.

Especially when you look at some of the promises made by these institutions.

twofingerstoEverything · 24/08/2019 14:32

I am taking that New Statesman (America) article with a massive pinch of salt. Firstly the students complained about marks for 'an end of year essay', while it's being implied that the Firsts, 2:1s etc were what the students ended up with as their final award classification. I work in a university and although we have an appeals system, the one thing students cannot appeal against is 'academic judgment', ie. marks. They can, however, appeal against irregularities etc., so I'm assuming that the (unnamed) department at Sheffield had found some kind of irregularity that gave the students grounds for appeal and uplift. I do agree that university study has been commodified and that this is wrong, but the academics I know are absolutely rigorous in their marking and would certainly not moderate marks upwards because a student whined that it 'wasn't fair'. I have sat in many Exam Boards too and seen the rigour applied by external examiners who would certainly question any mark inflation. They receive samples of students' work and would have something to say if they saw that poor quality work was receiving similar marks to high quality work. Universities don't just conduct themselves however they want. They come under significant scrutiny from the QAA etc.

cantkeepawayforever · 24/08/2019 14:44

I was shocked to read of the leaked grade boundaries for the recent A levels with a maths A only requiring achievement of 55% mark. On what planet is that worth an A!! The system does need an overhaul for sure.

Do you not see that it is possible to set an exam where the most able - the 'A or A* students' - get 95%, and equally set another paper for EXACTLY the same group of students where the most able score 55%. Or 25%. Or any other number.

A lower percentage does not mean that the marking is lax, that standards are low, that students aren't very able. It just means that the paper was set at a hard level, at a level where it was difficult for even able students to score very highly.

In fact, this is quite common now, because there is such an emphasis on differentiating between A and A, or 8 and 9, so papers HAVE to be set at a harder level to absolutely ensure that there is a spread of marks at this very high level (not just 'all able pupils got 95%+'). On exactly the papers where an A was 55%, a student at DS's perfectly normal comp scored over 95% - so there will be students who did score 100%, and thus the paper has to be set at a level where there aren't 'too many' students hitting the 100% score who cannot be separated into A and A, or 8 and 9.

cantkeepawayforever · 24/08/2019 14:46

In the 'old days', there was just an A. It was in my school quite routine for able pupils to score 100%, or high 90s, but as long as not too many did to give a surfeit of As, that was fine. Now there would be a need to differentiate between the As and A*s out of that same group, s the papers have to be set at a level where very few score 100%.

IAmALazyArse · 24/08/2019 17:35

I would think that grading could be done kind of like this.
85+ A*
75-84 A
65-74 B
5etc. Not exact, but similar levels.
I am sorry, but getting A for achieving 55 is quite... So odd to me. I went through different school system abroad and 55 would give you simply solid middle grade from A-E. E being fail. We don't do stars.

cantkeepawayforever · 24/08/2019 17:42

I am - yes, you can. But that relies on being able to set papers, consistently every session, in which 85% means exactly the same attainment and can be achieved by students of exactly the same ability.

That can be achieved in very stable curriculum / exam situations, particularly if there is no particular pressure to keep percentages of children gaining specific grades exactly the same year on year (so e.g. one year 85%+ might be gained by 12% of pupils, the next 17%, the next 15% etc etc).

This was the first year of new exam specifications, in a very turbulent curriculum / exam spec environment (these were the first cohort to sit the new exams, having also been the first to sit 9-1 GCSEs in Maths two years ago), in a country where there is very great pressure to keep the percentages of children gaining each level the same year on year (so much so that the GCSEs for the first sitting of 9-1 were pegged to the same percentages as the final year of the previous spec).

cantkeepawayforever · 24/08/2019 17:44

I am old enough to have taken O-levels, at the end of a long and stale period of exams (GCSEs came in just after I finished A-levels).

45% was a pass. Always. But that did have the result that different percentages passed each year.

cantkeepawayforever · 24/08/2019 17:50

(IIRC, though don't quote me on this, O-levels at that point were criterion referenced, and GCSEs today are norm-referenced. That meant that the 'pass' level in the past was fixed, but the numbers attaining it varied, whereas now, the 'pass' level varies but the numbers attaining it remain roughly constant.

It is MUCH harder to set a test in which the meaning of a particular % remains absolutely constant from year to year than one where the meaning of each percentage is ascribed once the whole cohort has sat the test and the data has been statistically analysed.)

feelingsicknow · 24/08/2019 17:50

I listened to the author of the article on LBC yesterday. I hadn't read the article but when it was introduced as being in The New Statesman I expected to disagree with him/it.

I couldn't believe it when he came on. It's what I have been saying for years. I wholeheartedly agreed with him. I will be encouraging my son to think more broadly about what he wants to do after leaving school, and not encouraging him to think that Uni is the default. It is no longer the panacea that it was many years ago. My DH and I earn roughly the same (me slightly more) and have a combined income of more than £100k pa. He went to college and then joined the army and is now in the private sector. I went to a 'good' university and did a waste of time degree which I wouldn't actually need in my current role.

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 24/08/2019 18:08

I suspect that what's gone on behind the scenes here is a review of the internal moderation process, and possibly also advice has been sought from the university's external examiner. What can happen in such cases is that if marks are found to be inconsistent with sector expectations, several courses of action are possible: the most extreme being to re-mark the whole cohort, another being to elevate the marks of the cohort by a set percentage, or to reduce them in a similar manner.

Once marks have been formally ratified at the summer assessment boards - which generally happen in June - they're set in stone and can't be changed. And this process is consistent across every university. There's something really odd about the content of this email in the context of the above, particularly in view of the fact that the marks at the higher end of the range remained unaltered.

I'm inclined to agree with you that the rot has set in within UK higher education, and that part of that process occurred when polytechnics became post-92 universities. This isn't to say that all of them teach rubbish, or that their staff are not world-renowned experts, which in many cases, they are. But they are teaching in an increasingly toxic area of the UK HE sector, and with some very serious constraints increasingly being put upon the way they do their jobs. The University of Sheffield isn't one of these, BTW - it's a Russell Group University that's supposedly held to impeccable standards of teaching, learning and delivery.

If it's really true that this university is cheating the system in some way, it needs to be investigated. But I know from my own experience that student feedback on these issues can be skewed, and doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture of events.

But given the way things things currently are, I'm not sure whether I'd be more surprised if this story were true than untrue, I'm sorry to say.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 24/08/2019 18:40

Obviously cock ups can happen anywhere. Where I worked, in theory all exam papers were supposed to be approved by the External long before they were set, but it didn't always happen. We did once have an exam where the students complained that it was too hard and after an internal review the department agreed marks on that particular assignment were out of line with other modules and uplifted all marks. That may have been what happened in Sheffield in the case I quoted in my OP.

Going back to school exams, I don't think it's generally understood what a huge change happened there a generation ago.

When I did O and A levels in the 70s, you sat exams (at my school there were no assessments other than unseen exams) that covered the whole curriculum. No modularisation at all. If you failed the exam, you had to resit, not just the bit you failed, the whole thing, or just give up, as a lot of people did.

When it came to grades, what mattered was where you were in relation to everybody else who'd taken the exam. You could have got 80% but if the exam board had agreed that an A would be awarded to the top 15% and the lowest person in the top 15% of candidates got 85%, you wouldn't get an A.

Nowadays, as I understand it, the exam boards say that if you get above a certain mark, you get the top grade, regardless of how many other candidates got that mark too. This is just as valid a way of determining grades as the way things used to be done, but it lends itself to teaching to the test more than the old way.

OP posts:
newtb · 24/08/2019 18:41

I managed to get a 'C' in maths 'A' level at a time when an A was 70%. The board was the JMB. In each of our papers we had to complete 7 double length questions and the JMB admitted that it was impossible to complete all 7 questions in the time allowed.

Times have changed.....

Solasshole · 24/08/2019 18:44

This doesn't happen at the universities I've attended. Both if them (science degrees) had hilariously unrealistic expectations for exams. Its very common in science degrees imo where most of the lecturers/markers are primarily researchers in their field with decades of experience. They seem to think their students should be able to know everything they know about their tiny obscure part of science in addition to every other lecturers tiny obscure part of science. They are generally awful at being able to give a succinct and overall education for a subject and instead get bogged down on the intricate, unnecessary details. They will fail a student because they could explain the overall concept and important parts of a certain genetic condition but failed to perhaps mentioned the exact specific nucleotide position on the gene that results in the genetic disorder. Lecturers in science fields are hilariously out of touch with the real world.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 24/08/2019 18:57

I had a summer job as a student working for an exam board, checking that examiners for O and A level papers appeared to have marked the whole script and had added the marks up right. It was always fun getting a batch of scripts for Maths A level from Hong Kong. We knew which they were because most candidates had been awarded more than 100%. Grin

The marking scheme allowed for this. It meant the candidate had not just done what was required to get 100% but had demonstrated more advanced knowledge too - or maybe they'd done more than the minimum questions. Not far short of 40 years ago, so can't remember precisely.

I thought of that this week when hearing that you can get an A in Maths now with 50 something %. Something's changed.

OP posts:
woman19 · 24/08/2019 19:01

I don't think it's generally understood what a huge change happened there a generation ago
The move from norm referencing to criterion referencing is assessment has changed the face of 'academic' education?

Lecturers in science fields are hilariously out of touch with the real world
Aren't some of HE lecturers, Phd students working on zero hours?
Some HE marking is also farmed out to paid markers, too.

Basically, if you turn a public service into a money making/ rip off, the standards will plummet.

Despite the very best efforts of some brilliant and committed. HE teachers and students.

Crinkle77 · 24/08/2019 19:14

I work in a university and you keep getting 'I'm paying £9000 a year'. Erm no you're not. I'd love to say err no the student loan company is you haven't paid a penny yet.

Booboostwo · 24/08/2019 20:23

I am an academic, I started as a student in 91 and I cannot believe the complete devastation of the UK HE in every respect possible. This is not just moaning about the good old days, this is systematic underfunding, institutionalized undermining and horrific mismanagement at every level.

In the next five years we’ll see the first Uni to go bankrupt, with more to follow and then people may realize what is happening.