UUK Consultation on
the
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 currently 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 specific
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.
Whilst the three-point scale
proposed would help ensure a greater engagement with the information contained
in the transcript and reduce the attention paid to the summative judgement, it
is likely that it would replicate at the Pass/Distinction boundary the problems
encountered with the current system at the boundary between the 2.2 and the 2.1
(see Q.1). It is also unrealistic to
expect that there would be consistency across the sector in setting the
Distinction threshold. Our preference
would be to dispense with the Distinction category and rely on the
student’s overall programme mark (which we express in terms of a percentage)
and the information in the transcript.
Q.4 Do you
agree that the category of ‘Distinction’ should be reserved for a
very small number of excellent candidates.
We are not in favour of a
Distinction category (see Q.3). If the
general consensus of opinion were that it should be used, we would wish it to be
reserved for a very small number of candidates and awarded for performance
above a specific threshold, not on a ranking criterion (eg not to the top 5% of
students in a cohort). As already indicated,
we have a concern there would not be a consistent threshold 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, save for the fact that we do not support the creation of a
Distinction category.
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 are opposed in principle
to providing information on the relative performance of students within a
cohort. The performance of one cohort
relative to that of another (from year to year, or programme to programme) can
vary substantially; this could unfairly influence the perception of an
individual student’s performance.
The consultation document itself highlights the difficulty of providing
meaningful information in the case of small cohorts.
Q7 Are there
any additional comments/observations you would like to make.