Anarchy in the U.K.

British university watchdog criticizes “meaningless” degrees; “rotten” grade inflation


Concerns over the quality of education and grade inflation in the U.K. have the head of the country’s educational-standards body defending the “robust” higher-education system that serves British students. But it was only a week ago that Peter Williams, the chief executive of the Quality Assurance Agency, was himself blasting many aspects of British education.

Williams was widely quoted in British media last week as saying that the grading system in the U.K. is “rotten” and “unreliable”; that second- and third-class degrees have become “meaningless”; and that international students at British schools have come to expect that “if they pay their fees, they will get a degree.” He also suggested that some schools are becoming overly dependent on foreign students.

Yesterday, Williams wrote an op-ed in the Guardian that stepped back from those earlier comments. He defended the overall quality of the British university system while acknowledging that there were several areas for improvement, including the degree-granting structure and recruitment of international students.

Williams wrote that the university system has adapted to globalization and is now “less homogeneous” than in the past. With so many students graduating with increasingly diverse degrees, the system can’t sustain itself. William recommended a re-examination of the degree structure. He also said that as a means of accommodating international students who may not speak or write English as fluently as many Britons, the government should explore language training.

In the U.K., the classification system is as follows: First-class honours degrees (Firsts) are the highest achievement, followed by upper second-class honours (2:1), lower second-class honours (2:2), third-class honours, and ordinary (or pass) degrees.

As evidence of grade inflation, the Telegraph reported that last year, nearly two-thirds of students graduated with first- or second- class degrees. Only 45 per cent achieved the same mark in 1996.

That trend has some in Britain questioning the legitimacy of students’ achievements. Schools are being accused of inflating grades as a way to, as the BBC wrote, “improve the public image of universities and to make them more attractive to applicants”.

A confidential e-mail that surfaced earlier this week only fuelled the fire.

The BBC obtained an email sent several months ago by the academic standards manager at Manchester Metropolitan University, asking computing and mathematics staff to consider raising student grades.

“We do not award as many Firsts and 2.1s as other comparable institutions so there is an understandable desire to increase the proportion of such awards,” read the email. “Please bear this in mind when setting your second and final year assessments, especially the latter.”


Anarchy in the U.K.

  1. More shoddy journalism from Macleans.

    The article in the Telegraph says two thirds of students receive first OR upper second class degrees. This poorly written Macleans article suggests that two thirds are receiving firsts, which is simply not true.

    Come on Macleans, you can do better.

  2. More shoddy comments from people with no observational skills.

    The sixth paragraph says, “…graduated with first- or second- class degrees. Only 45 per cent achieved the same mark in 1996.”

    Come on Jack, you can do better.

  3. Scott,

    Jack correctly identified an error in the story that was subsequently changed. It originally read “first-class degrees” only.


  4. Nick,

    I guess all that’s left for me to do is apologize. And hope that Jack doesn’t come back up the hill.


  5. In your defense, Scott, some sort of notice should be made if an article has been changed, particularly in cases such as these. Either in the article itself, or even in the comments, just to acknowledge that a mistake was made and has been corrected. Perhaps in the future…?

    That being said, a relatively simple mistake, quickly corrected, like the one pointed out by Jack is a far cry from ‘shoddy journalism’ and makes for an outright ‘poorly written article’. A truly poor article will shine through as such even after the principle of charity is applied, which I do not think is the case here. And regardless of your thoughts on Macleans proper, I think the Oncampus crew have done an excellent job at delivering Canada’s only nation-wide education news service, despite Joey’s ongoing abuse of spelling and grammar :)

Sign in to comment.