Assessment methods at top 10 unis - movement away from traditional exams?

[Springflowers1]

Really interested in getting feedback and experiences on this for humanities/social sciences at top unis as DC2 is in yr12 and I think this is something we should be more aware of when evaluating options and comparing unis. For context DC1 is at Oxbridge doing an exam heavy essay subject with very little scope for coursework or other forms of assessment. First 2 years is all very stressful traditional exams and 3rd year is 3/4 traditional exams plus a dissertation or similar. Uni did do 5hr open book exams for a while after covid but reverted back to exam halls due to concerns about cutting and pasting of old essays and use of AI.

First time around I wasn't fully aware that so many other top unis now employed many diverse ways of assessing students and that often the majority of exams were open book eg 24hr ones?

Those of you with DC doing essay subjects at high ranking unis, how have they found these alternative modes of assessment, particularly 24hr open book exams? Does the removal of the need to memorise everything significantly reduce stress levels? It makes alot of sense to me - nothing in the world of work is about memorisation of vast amounts of information, but I know it's not straightforward because of issues with AI.

I’m not asking you to be impressed. It’s just my way of defending myself against your unpleasant slur.
I have been here a while so I know you were admissions tutor, because you mention it a lot.

Middle DD has just finished Law at Warwick. Her modules were assessed by a mixture of essays, presentations and exams, (the 24hr remote type). However, she says the Law School are now moving all the exams to being the in-person type to deal with AI, and this is not going down well with the students!

I also invigilate at my local RG uni and they have a wide range of in-person exams twice a year, in January and May/June, but seemingly only for stem and social science subjects. They’re also all hand-written unless the student has special access arrangements. Not sure what they do with the humanities.

Youngest DD is at Oxford and she has to do one dissertation but the rest of her degree will come down to 7 in-person exams in finals. I wouldn’t mind so much if they had longer to do them - writing 3 essays in 3 hours is tough. And so many of the students have extra time these days that it doesn’t seem a very level playing field.

I do wonder sometimes if Oxbridge will change their examination system to be more in line with what happens at other universities, especially with the rise of university-blind job applications where all degrees are supposedly equal!

DD prefers in person exams to any other form of assessment. She likes having an end goal and sees exams as the culmination of her learning. Finals at Oxford suited her well as they examined the culmination of her learning over three years. DS’s Finals at Cambridge were similar. He is doing a Master’s degree sponsored by his employer and has to submit a piece of work at the end of each standalone module. He says for him this is so much easier than the Final exams approach.

My sister, many years ago now, did a course on something (I forget what) in London for adults. I remember her tearing her hair out in frustration, exclaiming "English women are so crap at maths." The course had attracted middle class and upper middle class SAHMs, all of whom had been to university, but they couldn't reliably calculate quite simple sums in their heads. This is not something that the English education system should be proud of and it really ought to be remedied.

@Ceramiq So, are you advocating mandatory mental arithmetic exercises for middle and upper class SAHMs? Specifically English ones.

Presumably, all those women would have been educated to at least ‘O’ level maths. Without any need and, presumably, inclination to practise something regularly, I’m not at all surprised they were a bit rusty.

It’s more than this. British and Americans - and I regret to say that one sees more of this in women than in men - laugh about being hopeless at maths. These people would never make jokes about being unable to read. The implication is that it is nerdish and/or unfeminine to be good at maths. (Actually research shows that little girls start becoming aware of this from an incredibly young age, and Early Years teachers show unconscious bias in the classroom.)

There is much less of this on the Continent and in Asia.

I agree that these days being good at maths is somehow seen as either geeky or unfeminine. I don't remember it being like that in the 80s when I was a teenager, in fact me and a few other girls were the ones taking maths O level early and getting As (went downhill for me at A level.....) and nobody really commented on it.

I never understand why people are proud of being rubbish at maths, I think knowing the basics including fractions and percentages is empowering.

I lack confidence in maths but thankfully I am much better at mental arithmetic now than I was at school. I was brought up by a mother who repeatedly said “we’re not good at maths” and went to a secondary school where the male physics teacher refused to teach girls and the male maths teacher mocked those who were slow to grasp concepts. I grew up believing I could not do maths. Ironically I married an extremely competent mathematician and my own DC have had a much more positive maths education.

I am very sorry this happened to you. Teacher expectations can have so much to do with pupil outcomes that when expectations are low, life chances are limited.

they couldn't reliably calculate quite simple sums in their heads. This is not something that the English education system should be proud of and it really ought to be remedied.

But that's primary school level, not something you need to be or should be teaching 16-18yos.

We can blame technology for the decline in skills here. Even though maths isn't my subject, I used to be very good at basic arithmetic, either in my head or with pencil and paper. But then it became easy to reach for a calculator, and those skills have become very rusty. I can still do it, if there's no calculator to hand, but not as easily and quickly as I used to.

i agree, we need ti improve maths confidence more. Not making everyone do maths a level but keep learning maths /science etc up to 18. I dropped biology at 14 and that would also have been useful for longer, )ie triple science or double science like they do now)

Not making everyone do maths a level but keep learning maths /science etc up to 18.

But if they're not doing A Level, what maths are they going to be doing up to 18?

I could argue that everyone should do history up to 18, especially English/British history, especially the development of law and constitution from the Anglo Saxons onwards, because you only have to read posts here to see how woefully ignorant many people are. But I bet the people arguing for STEM wouldn't go for that.

And you do have to start specialising at some point. Otherwise you end up with first year university courses having to cover what used to be taught at A Level. Or move to four year courses as in the us.

Otherwise you end up with first year university courses having to cover what used to be taught at A Level.

That already happens to a degree. That’s why some find it a big jump in year 2.

Curriculum and examinations do not have to take the form of GCSEs and A-levels. Those are the current conventions but reform is needed and is perfectly possible. The big issue is not curriculum and assessment reform but the political will to finance a broader education from 16-18.

The big issue is not curriculum and assessment reform but the political will to finance a broader education from 16-18.

But the point stands - what are you going to teach students from 16-18 if they have reached the limits of their ability in particular subjects by the time they are 16?

How are you going to keep students engaged if you're making them study subjects they don't like, aren't interested in and have no aptitude for?

If a broader education is the aim, how about requiring everyone to do a mfl to 16, as it was in my day?

Mathematics and English (mother-tongue) are fundamental subjects in a way that even MFL (which I value very highly) are not. England is unusual in not requiring maths and mother tongue to the end of secondary education - a real outlier.

But, once again, what maths are you going to teach someone who just managed to pass O Level/GCSE, has no interest or aptitude and basically does not want to be in a maths class?

Arithmetic, as in adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing, is a fundamental subject, but I learned to do those in primary school. I've managed to live my life without needing most if not all of what I learned in maths at secondary school. Having forgotten most of it, in fact.

What maths are they teaching to the end of secondary in other countries? How does it compare to GCSE/A Level in England, or the Scottish syllabus?

How about Level 3 Core Maths, which is already available in many (most?) sixth forms?

How about Level 3 Core Maths

Have just looked at an AQA past paper, and I think a lot of that was covered in our O Level syllabus, if not earlier - things like understanding compound interest, calculating percentages, and so on. I don't remember doing statistical terminology, though.

I think the bigger problem is the 29% of 16 year olds who do not get at least a 4 in maths GCSE (and are highly unlikely to pass it when they retake). I think you only need to get about 15% to get a 4 in the foundation paper.

I think that a lot of students should probably be doing core maths rather than GCSE but I can't see the point in everyone doing it past GCSE.

V interesting thread. Currently studying with OU. Remote exams which have to be completed in 3-4 hours. And assessments. Exams are being cut right back. I had no idea other unis were moving in the same direction. In a 3/4 hour exam I think you need to know quite a bit to get a high mark. Only have time to refer to notes a limited number of times. I would rather be in a hall. I like assessments. I do notice though for the modules with exams my understanding deepens as I need recall under pressure.

@Springflowers1 @O2HaveALittleHouse @Rbof
A general response really and not just aimed at the above posters.

So Loughborough Uni - at least for my YP- has all end-of-year exams and are in person.

I think there are certain modules you could choose where the assessments are mainly coursework etc. YP was shocked to learn how few exams her friends at unis such as Exeter and Bristol have. Admittedly in other subjects but subjects where, 30 years ago, they would have had to sit end-of-year in person exams.

Agree with @poetryandwine . If someone thinks students don't use AI apart from 'planning and structuring', with all due respect, they are deluded. In truth, I can see the temptation if you're under pressure. Starting planning with AI would then very easily lead to using it for checking sentences, content and more.

One friend's kid was very open in front of a big group that they'd used AI for an online 'open book' exam. She said everyone does it! This is Bristol.

And, yes, to a certain extent those who do well on an exam have great memory skills. But that is forgetting that those individuals also often have superior analytical and critical thinking skills. They are often the kids who just seem to know (without prompting or showing) how to revise effectively.

That doesn't mean that those without these skills don't belong at uni, it just used to mean they didn't get Firsts. Now, with AI, many do. This is not right.

Some people argue that uni assessment in the form of in-person exam do not reflect every day life or work. But it's not really meant to. The original purpose of university was the pursuit of truth, the cultivation of critical intelligence and the preservation of culture. I do feel we have lost a bit of this, although I also welcome modernisation of course.

Having worked in the past for many years in HR and assessing/recruiting people from all walks of life, I can say that, almost always, those who did very well academically also did exceptionally well in their jobs. Being able to have great memories, think on the spot I've always found to go hand-in-hand with superior analytical and critical thinking skills. And they are also often very driven to do a great job and perform to a high standard.

So, yes, I think in-person assessments are crucial. But I realise some unis are struggling with their finances so can see how it was easy to switch to online, albeit a very short-termish measure. This doesn't mean that coursework does not have a place, it does, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

Interestingly, there is an article in the Spectator - shared on another post on MN - about a professor (part of the examination team) who has resigned from Durham due to this issue of AI and online exams.

"And, yes, to a certain extent those who do well on an exam have great memory skills. But that is forgetting that those individuals also often have superior analytical and critical thinking skills. They are often the kids who just seem to know (without prompting or showing) how to revise effectively.
That doesn't mean that those without these skills don't belong at uni, it just used to mean they didn't get Firsts. Now, with AI, many do. This is not right."

This is the problem isn't it, because I imagine there are certain careers where employers want to be sure they are getting those employees who have all those skills. They are the self starters, the self motivated who have always got on with it and known how to get results independently. Excellent memories but also intelligently apply that knowledge.

My eldest DC is one of those.

One of the DC of my friend is of average intelligence and got mediocre GCSE and BTEC results. She recently told me he could be on track for a first. His university degree has no exams. He must be using AI.

AI sift for graduate jobs won't know which firsts were hard earned and which weren't.

One of the DC of my friend is of average intelligence and got mediocre GCSE and BTEC results. She recently told me he could be on track for a first. His university degree has no exams. He must be using AI.

Doesn't a First require some evidence of original thinking? Which AI won't provide because it only regurgitates what's already out there.

It really doesn’t any more.