Degree result affected by strike

[dozydoora]

Hi. Is anyone else out there in this position? DD has just missed a 1st on her degree by 0.4%. Her course was badly hit by the strikes before Easter but the uni say they have dealt with the effect of the strikes by re-writing the exams to remove content not taught. When it was pointed out that this did not take into effect the stress and uncertainty that had hit all the students, which is really likely to have reduced all marks by a few percent, they would only refer to claims for extenuating situations -ie where stress had actually resulted in medication by a GP. So for those kids who did not completely fall apart, the message seems to be 'tough'. Don't get me wrong, we are so proud of her result and a 2.1 is fantastic, but it doesn't seem fair that this whole cohort have been affected by the strikes and the unis are just ignoring it in the marks - this applies to those who have missed any grade boundaries by a couple of percent, not just the top ones. Anyone else in the same situation? Any thoughts?

To be fair narrowly missing out must be frustrating and I can imagine how the strikes must have affected all students. Saying she should have taken a year off is a but unrealistic when the strikes were at Easter.

Unfortunately for the op, I think the devil is in the detail here. She needs to know the individual module marks for the final two years, and if the board of examiners have reviewed.

It's a system where 69 can be a first for some and a 2:1 for others.

So student A received 75,74,73:72, 70, 70 , 60

Studen B achieved 62,65,64,63, 65, 80 ,

I haven't done the math, but if both added up to 69.6, student a would get a first, and student b a 2:1, even though they both achieved 69.6. Because student a had predominantly performed at a first level and student b a 2:1 level.

The students haven't chosen to become consumers and pay all this money - it has been forced on them

NEITHER HAVE THE UNIVERSITIES! We have no choice. We cannot increase fees to reflect the actual amount it costs. Pension and employers NI have sky rocketed - can we pass that on to our 'consumers'. No. It's not a real market. Students are not consumers. They don't buy a first class degree. Their fee provides access to a host of resources including very highly qualified staff. That's all. No guarantees of anything.

Would you choose to run a car showroom where you had to sell a BMW for the same price as a Skoda, had to guarantee the sales people a payrise year after year after year, had to guarantee not to increase the price of your cars for 10+ years, AND had to guarantee that all your car buyers would get 50+ miles to the gallon even if they chose to drive on the motorway in 2nd gear?

I don't think anyone said the students were buying a first, what was said basically is they are buying a specific service.

However strikes are normally under forc majeure if it came to it, unless reasonably they could afford to avoid it. They should have a basic service level agreement though and I do think that yes, students are now consumers and can expect that. Strikes are something different though.

I'm not sure of the relevance to this subject matter. The universities seem to have behaved reasonably when offsetting the impact of what can only be assumed was a realistically unavoidable strike.

but I will have a look and see how it fits with the tests you have outlined

You need to look at the breakdown in relation to *her specific university's examination regulations" - these will be published & available on the university's website. Each university will be slightly different.

But seriously! your DD should be doing this. She's about to graduate & presumably enter the workforce as a competent adult, able to advocate for herself - she really shouldn't need a parent doing this for her. Seriously.

Everything @titchy says, times 100.

what was said basically is they are buying a specific service If they are "buying" anything they are paying for the opportunity to study towards a degree.

What they DO with that opportunity (attend classes, do the preparation, engage with the materials, go further & more independently, attend extra sessions, go to employability workshops, and so on), is entirely up to them.

But seriously! your DD should be doing this. She's about to graduate & presumably enter the workforce as a competent adult, able to advocate for herself - she really shouldn't need a parent doing this for her

Meh, my daughter was worried she'd be borderline, so I looked up her uni and how they handled it and we discussed it and understood it. There is a difference between helping v doing it because your child can't. I don't think because the op wishes to help means her daughter is incapable.

I really sympahise with anyone gaining such a close borderline mark, who worked hard and had feedback suggesting they were capable of gaining a first. There can be a huge element of luck and circumstance involved, at any time - which questions came up, whether some personal upset had recently occurred etc. But, every borderline student can't be marked up, that would be changing the border. Someone will always be in your dd's position.

Your dd will gain an excellent reference (and/or transcript, not sure how this works these days) which will make clear that she gained a 'top 2:1', which is a great grade and demonstrates consistent hard work.

But, maybe she really has worked consistently, the the best of her ability, throughout her course. Maybe she didn't have that extra capacity for excellence, when her enthusiasm and hard work all came together in her final year, required to take her to the next level.

It's really normal for students to gain a grade better in their dissertation than over all. I don't really understand your comment what I meant was that it was impossible to know the effect on her studies until the exams were sat and marked as people know when revising and going through past papers how well-prepared they are.

During my last course of study, only a few years ago, I did fill in an extenuating circumstances form for one year's exam. The advice on the form was essentially 'please don't waste our time with anything minor, the sort of circumstance we're interested in is serious medical issues or the death of a loved one (within a very specific timeframe, documented).' It is hard to see that stress, in someone who hasn't been medically diagnosed, due to circumstances that affected everyone, could come into this category.

There is a huge range of difficult, distracting and stressful circumstances that do have to be chalked up to normal life, or bad luck and taken in ones stride, however difficult this might be. Some people are more easily derailed than others. Learning to stay on track is part of learning to learn (and to work), hard as that can be.

As others have said, the markers will have considered the grade thresholds and cohort performance too. That should smooth out the 'strike effect', given it disadvantaged everyone on the same course, equally.

Hi everyone. I appreciate ALL the advice here. It's interesting to see how different people interpret what you are saying. Not sure I can address all the points, but here goes - the past papers were useless because the exams in strike hit modules were changed to exclude untaught content. In practice, what the students were saying was that the subjects that were in the exams were gone into in more detail than in previous years to enable enough questions to be prepared, so even those topics in previous exam questions weren't any good.
DD is extremely capable of pursuing this for herself and will do so if appropriate. However she doesn't have access to all this great advice on mumsnet as she's not a mum!
I'm not saying the unis did want the fee structures put in place as they have been or that it is a good system for them either. What I am saying is that the whole system has developed ad-hoc and has left some difficult areas as a result. Of course the students need to work, but on the other side, they are also entitled to know that the course will be fully delivered. I have never said that I didn't support the strikes or the reasons behind them and the assumption that that is my standpoint is wrong. I am simply looking at this from the affected students' viewpoint and expressing my belief that the effect on them has been more significant that the universities would have us believe.
My comments regarding students with pre-existing stress diagnosis has again been mis-interpreted. If a student suffering from stress is given further allowance because of the strike, it stands to reason that a student without prior stress should also receive the further allowance, as they will have been affected, just not to the level where GP intervention is required. And at the end of the day, we are only talking about an effect of less than 1% overall - how many students fall into this bracket at any of the grade boundaries?

I don't think you understand 'stress as a medical diagnosis'. It is not 'a bit more stress', it is a medical condition.

It's one of those instances where confusion is caused by the same word being used in common parlance and in medicine. Likewise depression, a serious medical condition, is not the same thing as feeling sad, or down, even though people use the term 'a bit depressed' to describe those things. It's not that it's being 'a bit more sad', it's in a different category of experience entirely.

The thing is, if your dd felt stressed to the point that it was affecting her mental health, she should have seen a doctor. Universities (and employers) cannot operate on the basis of people saying 'oh but three months ago I felt a bit like this', they need documented evidence.

When I filled in my extenuating circs form 3 or 4 years ago, the conditions were very strict. A serious illness counted only if it had an effect within three weeks before the exam, for example. (Any earlier and there was time to pull the revision together). The expectation is always that normal life happens, including the bad bits and that students need to allow for that when planning their work and revision.

Also, I had to submit the form within 48 hours of sitting my last exam. Because obviously, anyone knowing they'd suffered a setback worthy of an extenuating circs application, is extremely well aware of this at the time they sit the exam - you've either experienced serious medical issues, death etc within the relevant timeframe, or you haven't.

Have you looked up the university's / her department's extenuating circs policy? That might help you understand how her situation does, or doesn't, fit in.

Just be thankful your child did not have mental health issues that meant she was already qualifying for extenuating circumstances. It’s rather more than “annoying”.

As PPs have explained, university degree classification is decided on more than simple grade averages.

On the plus side, her consistent, hardworking performance over the last two or three years will look really good to employers - who want capable, consistent, hardworking, reliable people.

A 'pulled a first out of the bag after being a bit a bit lazy in second year' person (not what your dd would have been but what some possesers of firsts are) might make an employer more nervous, as there's a hint or unreliability and inconsistency there.

While it may really sting at the moment, I don't think I know anyone whose career has been limited by having a high 2:1. She has what's needed to gain access to postgrad courses and could go on to gain a distinction at masters level, if she's really into a particular subject. Or set off on any number of exciting career paths. Good luck to her!

p.s. Just one last thought, as this thread has stayed in my head a bit.

You haven't explained how your dd, in particular, was more disadvantaged by the strikes than others on the same course. (Yet not affected badly enough to recognise this and take any action at the time). Surely everyone suffered the same disruptions and the same unpredictable exam questions (presumably on material they'd covered and could be expected to understand in this much detail)?

It seems likely that everyone was affected equally, so any effect on marks will have been smoothed out by the various cohort-wide comparison methods the academics upthread have described.

What strikes me is that no-one can plan for acts of god, lecturers, families or friends and I feel more sorry for people with individual sub-extenuating unhappy circumstances - like being dumped by their boyfriend, beloved pets dying, parents unwell or divorcing perhaps - whose marks, if negatively affected, will not be smoothed out by any cohort-wide measure but who will drop marks in both absolute and relative terms. Sad but part of life, unfortunately.

My son’s degree was badly hit by strike action. It definitely affected an extended essay and dissertation. And left a sour taste in his mouth after two previously great years. He did OK but could have done better with the five tutorials he didn’t get as a result of the strike.

And at the end of the day, we are only talking about an effect of less than 1% overall - how many students fall into this bracket at any of the grade boundaries?

But if you move the cutoff down/change the rules so your DD gets a First the people just below the new cutoff will feel equally aggrieved. With the current classification system there are always going to be some students just below grade boundaries. Getting a 2:i rather than a First has almost no significance, outside academia. Getting a 2:2 rather than 2:i does.

As other academics have written, scores on courses affected by strikes were looked at in great detail by the examination boards. They were cross-correlated with scores of the same students on other courses and adjusted if needed to be in line with these.

In the case of dissertations, internal examiners and external examiners will have reviewed all dissertations in detail, looking at the impact of striking lecturers. In the cases I reviewed (3 universities), there was no statistical difference in cohort scores between students who had striking supervisors and those who had non-striking supervisors.

I can understand why rhis is frustrating though and why it would be easy to think if there hadn't been the strike I'd have got a first.

The question is has the uni made all reasonable adjustments for it, and in addition what's the wider performance of rhe individual student.

Unis tend to be more generous then penalise, and there are a lot of reviews/marks before a final award is given.

So your daughter ended with a weighted mark of 69.6%? Or an average mark?

What is your daughter’s median?

Hi. I don’t have all her marks to hand now as I’m leaving it to her to decide what she wants to do now. I’ve given her all the info on here and it’s up to her how to use - it if she does use it As per Abra above, no matter what the unis say, the strikes did effect a whole cohort of students in a multitude of different ways that aren’t possible to calculate and there will be a whole cohort left with a sour taste which is just so unfair.

But if you think your dd should be compensated for not being able to make use of past exam papers, what about the students who were doing a new module last semester? They won't have been able to get even the level of guidance your dd was because there won't have been any past exam papers, so shouldn't their marks be moved up even higher?

And if any general stress is counted, even though it's actually not severe enough to even require a visit to the doctor- what about those students who split up with their boyfriend last semester, or whose parents divorced, or whose grandparents died, shouldn't their marks be moved up too?

It's not about previous evidence: I am sure the university would have been prepared to consider your dd's case if the ensuing stress had actually made her ill and there was medical evidence to that effect. Just as they would consider someone who had a breakdown after a bad relationship or a bereavement. What they are not prepared to consider is every single student who has had any stress at all in their life. If they did, there would be no end to it.

I have just sat through an exam board, and the amount of evidence of the effect of the strike gathered for every single module, and the amount of scrutiny put in by the examiners, was absolutely mind-blowing. Particularly when you realise that most of that work will have been done on unpaid overtime.

Feel your pain OP. Dd got her unofficial degree classification will get the official ones later. Although not as close to first as your dd iat 69% but I do feel quite gutted for her. She is borderline but doesn't feel it will get pushed up because her uni requires 50% of modules year 2 or 3 or mix of both to be of 1st class or more. She doesn't. She has a overall 1st in final year but her 2nd year is mid 2:1. So near but so far. I'm hoping not getting a first won't effect her getting studentship for PhD.

DD has spoken to Student Union now - they advise that uni unlikely to alter anything unless she can prove that the strike affected the whole course. The only way she can do that is to obtain all the marks from this year and last year, including the breakdown of all the module marks and then compare them. The overall marks won't help particularly as there are optional module choices in the 3rd year, some of which were hit by the strike, some which weren't and some only a little bit. Finding other students both this year and last year to compare marks against who completed the exact same modules is going to be nigh on impossible and even when she does, the number of students involved will not be sufficient to give any kind of meaning to the stats. Unfortunately her modules were the worst hit!
And before anyone says it, I don't believe that the exam moderators would have carried out that detailed an analysis on every mark from this year and last year and compared the two - across the degrees as a whole - yes, across the project marks - yes, across the dissertation marks - yes, but across individual students who completed exactly the same modules - no.
To those who believe I don't understand stress, I do, and clinical depression and anxiety and I have complete sympathy with those who suffer from it. The point I believe has been missed - just because you are not clinically ill does not mean that you have not been affected, and where we are talking about such small percentages, the effect only has to be small. Yes, there are a myriad of different reasons that any student could succumb to during their studies and I accept that unis do have options in place if required. My point is, and always has been, that if some students are given leeway due to extra stress caused by the strike, that 'extra stress' should be recognised across the board. It either exists or it doesn't, and it either effects all students or it doesn't.
Finally, why is the exam board work unpaid overtime? Not the students problem but why?

This feels a bit pointless but - I still don't think you do understand either stress as an illness, or the strict definition of extenuating circumstances.

A simple analogy for the illness might be that a diabetic would be affected by extra sugar in a way that someone without that illness would not be. Someone with diagnosed stress is experiencing a pathological response to stress.

Your 'allowing for a bit of stress across the board' idea, while seeming sensible and proportionate on the face of it, bears no relationship to universities' very strict and precise rules for granting leniency due to extenuating circumstances. But we've discussed that already.

I do sympathise with students affected by the strikes, especially final year ones. But, that doesn't mean there is an easy fix, after the event.

Why are you making such a fuss about this op? Is it likely to make a difference to anything? Can't you and your dd just be happy that she's achieved a very good 2:1, without fretting about having missed out on a 1st? Some people have to be right up against the boundary, wherever it is. Why shouldn't it be your dd?

Would it be fair if all your efforts resulted in getting your dd tipped over that boundary when other people with exactly the same result aren't because they've just accepted it without a fuss?

For what it's worth, ds has just got a high 2:1. I know he was capable of getting - and hoping for - a first. I know he was stressed and anxious about the significant impact of the strikes. But we are very pleased and proud of his achievement and he's still celebrating 2 weeks post results. I would never contemplate or encourage him to contemplate any dissatisfaction with his result.