Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: UUK
Consultation on the
Origin: Chair; Secretary
We would agree that there is
a need to promote better use of the information provided in the academic
transcript and encourage employers to take a broader view of a student’s
achievements than it is possible to convey through the summative judgement provided
by the degree classification.
Q.1 Do you
agree with the need to replace the
We agree with the need to
replace the
Q.2 In which
areas or activities would it be useful to capture additional information about
student performance in the core elements of the transcript.
We agree that greater
emphasis should be placed on the additional information provided in the
transcript, but we are not in favour of expanding the amount of detail provided
beyond the requirements of the European Diploma Supplement. We suspect that any greater level of detail
is unlikely to be considered helpful by employers. At Loughborough, we already indicate on the
transcript the marks awarded for the written examination and coursework
components of all modules as well as the overall module mark, though the type
of activity/assessment represented by the coursework component is not
recorded. The variety of nomenclature used
for different types of learning activity and mode of assessment across the
sector could be quite bewildering if imported into the transcript.
Q.3 Do you
consider that moving to a three-point scale as outlined would address the
concerns raised about the summative judgement and the increased importance of
engaging with the wider additional information contained in the transcript.
We think the three-point
scale proposed would be compatible with a transcript-led approach.
Q.4 Do you
agree that the category of ‘Distinction’ should be reserved for a
very small number of excellent candidates.
We agree that the
‘distinction’ category should be reserved for a very small number
of candidates. ‘Distinction’
should be awarded for performance above a specific threshold, however, and not
on a ranking criterion (eg not to the top 5% of students in a cohort). We think it should be applied consistently
within institutions and across the sector.
Q.5 Do you agree
that the Group should consider and develop in detail a model in which each
institution would use its own grading scheme, the transcript would record all
grades and the summative judgement of Distinction/Pass/Fail would be derived
according to the institution’s own rules.
We agree with the approach
suggested, but would wish to see a large measure of consistency across the
sector on the minimum thresholds for pass and distinction.
Q.6 In
principle, would you welcome information on the relative performance of
students within a cohort. If so, which
of the three approaches described in paragraph 29 would you favour.
We would be against the award
of ‘distinction’ on a ranking criterion and against the use of a
credit-weighted grade point average system.
For the latter process to be transparent, each student’s grade point
score would need to be calculated and published: a lot of information that
helps to differentiate the performance of individual students would be lost in
the conversion process . We would be
more favourably inclined towards reporting on the transcript the proportion of
students awarded ‘distinctions’ and ‘passes’.
Q7 Are there
any additional comments/observations you would like to make.