Well, I thought I'd end on something a little light-hearted...
After being duly (and quite properly) chastised by my co-blogger for my lack of contribution on the post front, I make amends with something of a controversial effort. Degree inflation is something of a hot topic in many institutions. In relation to law, this blog has emerged and compares the allocation of Firsts, Upper and Lower Seconds in various institutions. What is less obvious however is the manner in which universities make decisions regarding what exactly a student has to achieve in order to attain a particular classification. There appears to be a general move to employ more discretion in the way that classifications are awarded, so that students do not have to attain a particular classification numerically in order to attain a particular grade of degree overall. This is not new, although not all universities use discretion in their determination of class. Some of us attended universities where no discretion (or minimal amounts of it) were used. Other institutions use quite a lot - some would say an inappropriate amount. Given the vast number (largely erroneous) assumptions that are made about the quality of degrees from particular institutions, the way that universities award class should be something that is far more readily digestible than is the case at the moment and taken into account in determining the progress of various applications.
My second topic is more delicate still. Let me reproduce for readers a conversation that I had with a Law colleague (whose own academic background might raise an eyebrow or two amongst the more puritan) over dinner one night. The conversation gravitated toward the numbers of women in academia, and the following was said:
Colleague: "So, how long do you think it will be before there are as many women as men in [...this particular institution]?"
Me: "About 30 years"
Colleague: "That dumb are they?"
Me: "No, but I suspect that you might be..."
And there is more. Lots of it...
On a more positive note, I have just consumed an excessive number of fajitas and am feeling rather pleased with my temporary descent into gluttony.
After being duly (and quite properly) chastised by my co-blogger for my lack of contribution on the post front, I make amends with something of a controversial effort. Degree inflation is something of a hot topic in many institutions. In relation to law, this blog has emerged and compares the allocation of Firsts, Upper and Lower Seconds in various institutions. What is less obvious however is the manner in which universities make decisions regarding what exactly a student has to achieve in order to attain a particular classification. There appears to be a general move to employ more discretion in the way that classifications are awarded, so that students do not have to attain a particular classification numerically in order to attain a particular grade of degree overall. This is not new, although not all universities use discretion in their determination of class. Some of us attended universities where no discretion (or minimal amounts of it) were used. Other institutions use quite a lot - some would say an inappropriate amount. Given the vast number (largely erroneous) assumptions that are made about the quality of degrees from particular institutions, the way that universities award class should be something that is far more readily digestible than is the case at the moment and taken into account in determining the progress of various applications.
My second topic is more delicate still. Let me reproduce for readers a conversation that I had with a Law colleague (whose own academic background might raise an eyebrow or two amongst the more puritan) over dinner one night. The conversation gravitated toward the numbers of women in academia, and the following was said:
Colleague: "So, how long do you think it will be before there are as many women as men in [...this particular institution]?"
Me: "About 30 years"
Colleague: "That dumb are they?"
Me: "No, but I suspect that you might be..."
And there is more. Lots of it...
On a more positive note, I have just consumed an excessive number of fajitas and am feeling rather pleased with my temporary descent into gluttony.
7 comments:
Those tables in the post you link to are interesting, but I suspect not particularly helpful in reaching any conclusions. For example
a) note the large proportion of new Universities in the top 'increase of 2:1s and firsts' table. This looks like an easy story - 'new university - lower standards, more susceptible to inflationary pressures' etc.. But then note that UCL is in that list and more importantly:
b) that the vast majority of those in the 'deflationary'list are also new universities. Again there is a simple answer - quality of intake, blah blah - but neither simple explanation makes sense of the spread of inflationary and deflationary figures.
What I would like to see is the LLB figures set against the figures for each University as whole. This might give some indication of where management pressure has been brought to bear on awards.
Lovely to see you back, by the way.
Hurrah! You are back, and not before time (bad co-blogger, you...). Am feeling equally gluttonous having just digested "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason" (you guessed it - a girlie night in!) - God, I could certainly digest Colin Firth (I don't suppose God needed to know that)!!! On that note, I shall retire to my bed chamber - it's more excitement than I can cope with in one evening... AD :-)
PS Good on you girl (for being rude to the twit I mean)... AD :-)
AD - I'd read the exchange about 'that dumb are they' as referring to the Seat of Learning in question for potentially taking 30 years to appoint equal numbers of women. I hadn't realised that I was still such an optimistic old lefty that I would overlook the alternative interpretation.
Worrying that I can have been around for so long and still be so dim. But not half as worrying as you not having flung Bridget Jones at the wall was an exasperated snort after 5 pages.
NL: Thank you very much - it is jolly nice to be back.
I agree that comparisons with the university's results as a whole may bear some fruit. I'm not sure that I even find the 'quality of intake' argument that compelling as an explanation - partly because A levels tell us so little now. I suspect that lack of uniformity in terms of marking standards across the HE sector might be part of what lies underneath this puzzle.
Alas, I fear that AD's interpretation of my conversation was the correct one...
AD: Have you seen Firthy in Mama Mia? (P.S. yep, he deserved that!).
NL, you appear to be suffering from "holiday hangover" and are not quite your usual astute self!!! I didn't READ Bridget Jones (no, no, of course not - what kind of vacuous floosie do you take me for?! This remark can be taken as being ironic or not, depending upon which interpretation of it does not offend the reader...), I watched it!! Only worth seeing because Colin Firth is in it! He's not in the book - obviously...
Lexy, no, sadly, I have not yet managed to drag myself to the flicks to see Mamma Mia, despite my best intentions - maybe today. I just love a good ABBA song, and Colin Firth, of course...
AD :-)
Fajitas?
Cant beat a curry
Post a Comment