Memorandum 89
Submission from Professor Barrie W Jervis
1. SUMMARY
Owing to the expansion in university places,
the entry requirements to some Honours Degree courses are now
minimal, in order that the universities can fill the places. This
leads to low ability students receiving Honours degrees. These
graduates cannot satisfy all the demands of their eventual employers.
There are a wide range of possible entry qualifications, some
of which rely on high coursework elements and are unjustly awarded.
These students are not prepared for university studies. The resultant
lowering of academic standards calls into question the meaning
and purpose of universities and of degree courses. Adjusting entry
requirements to admit more less-qualified students from poorer
backgrounds is likely to be counter-productive as these students
may not be prepared for the demands of university, may not catch
up, and may not complete their courses. Plenty of routes exist
to allow motivated students to qualify. There would be more confidence
in degrees if only the most academically able students took them
(top 20%, say). This would also reduce the drop-out rate. Other
young people would benefit from technical training at different
levels, satisfying a national demand. Good teaching and good research
are mutually supportive, but in most cases lecturers have too
much teaching and administration to devote much time to research.
The current research system is wasteful, and many foreign research
students take their knowledge home to our competitors, leaving
little behind. Better remuneration and career structures for researchers
are recommended. Degree classifications include an element of
luck, and degree standards vary considerably between courses.
The external examiner system does not guarantee a uniform standard
and needs revision. The degree certificate could be accompanied
by a general statement by the university about the skills the
degree was intended to foster. Degree courses could be ranked
nationally, and external examining could be anonymous. Plagiarism
should be severely punished. The academically more able should
receive full grants or scholarships for their degree courses;
the rest should receive loans. Twenty recommendations are offered
for consideration.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 I am a fairly recently retired Professor
of Electronic Engineering with particular teaching interests in
communication engineering (signal transmission), and have published
many research papers. I have taught in two English ex-Polytechnic
universities, in an American university, and have tutored for
the Open University. I have also worked briefly in a German company
and in a French university research laboratory. I have taught
students with HNC qualifications through to final year Honours
Degree and MSc students, including their final projects. I have
supervised and examined MPhil and PhD students in the UK, and
have been an external examiner for French PhD and Habilitation
candidates. I come from a poor family, but obtained a place in
a Cambridge college, thanks to my state Grammar School education,
and obtained an Honours Degree in Natural Sciences. After some
years in English industry I obtained a PhD at Sheffield University
and undertook post-doctoral research. I have strong views about
universities and the scientific and engineering education they
provide, derived from this experience.
3. INFORMATION
3.1 Admissions
3.1.1 There was a time when the minimum
entrance requirements for university were set at 5 GCEs and two
A-levels, and this system seemed to serve well the smaller number
of universities then extant. There are now a large number of universities
and their expansion and independence has been accompanied by a
corresponding burgeoning in the number and type of acceptable
entry qualifications. Since there are now more places than well-qualified
and motivated students, many universities enrol students with
minimal qualifications. For example, the entry requirement for
some BSc (Honours) courses in engineering is the possession of
GCSEs in English and maths and a stab at a technical A-level,
or equivalent. Few such poorly qualified students have the skills
to study at degree level, yet most obtain an Honours degree, because
their lecturers are encouraged to pass them at all stages. The
argument goes that, if you are qualified to enrol on a course,
then you must be capable of succeeding. Any failures must therefore
be the fault of the lecturers.
3.1.2 Some of these entrance qualifications are
of doubtful value. At one extreme they are achieved almost entirely
by coursework assignments, and I hear stories that many teachers
are pressurised to pass their students, however poor their knowledge
and understanding, if they want to keep their jobs.
3.1.3 Clearly the country needs as many qualified
and trained people as possible, and the government has set a target
for 50% of the annual cohort to enter higher education. It is
questionable that all these students, or the country, will benefit
by them all studying for the current three or four year degrees.
The expansion in the numbers of university first degree students
and in the number of universities themselves has been acknowledged
by many university lecturers and industrialists alike to have
resulted in a serious overall lowering of standards. Not only
are many graduates "not fit for purpose", but the very
definition of a university and a degree course and their purposes
is called into question. Courses other than degree courses should
be available for the less academically gifted. For example, there
is a shortage of skilled technicians.
3.1.4 The current policy of requiring universities
to enrol a quota of less qualified students from poorer backgrounds
is likely to be counter-productive. The intellectual abilities
of students with lower qualifications may not be as well developed,
and it is possible that this handicap will not be overcome at
university, and may lead to them dropping out. Students with a
desire to succeed have many possible routes to follow including
universities with lower entrance requirements, local colleges,
part-time courses, and evening classes. It might take longer,
but the opportunities are there.
3.2 The balance between teaching and research
3.2.1 This is a difficult issue. Ideally
teaching and research should reinforce each other. However, for
different individuals with different enthusiasms in different
universities in different circumstances one may dominate the other
by choice or necessity. Probably the more common situation is
that teaching and administrative duties take up most of the time,
with little being left for research. There is a valid argument
for concentrating research in a few universities, leaving the
remainder as teaching universities. Some lecturers are happy to
only teach, but they may not be as enthusiastic about their subject
or as competent at it as those who are pushing back its boundaries.
If all lecturers should undertake some research to stimulate their
teaching, then this would have to be reflected in their recruitment
and by a maximum teaching load.
3.2.2 The present system of research in UK universities
seems to me to be rather wasteful and inefficient. Research projects
are proposed and directed by lecturers, who generally lack sufficient
time for the task, and are carried out by research students and
post-doctoral workers, who are temporary. Because research students
are badly rewarded financially, a high percentage of them are
foreigners, seeking to improve themselves in their own countries.
After completion, they usually return to their own countries.
These people are the repositories of the latest research and technical
knowledge, so when they leave, they take it with them, both depriving
the UK of it and at the same time transferring it to what are
probably our competitors. It is difficult to imagine a more unsatisfactory
scenario.
3.4 Degree classification
3.4.1 There may be differences in the methodologies
adopted for degree classifications. One system is to base the
classification on the aggregated marks gained. These could be
for the final year, but sometimes this mark is combined with some
percentage of the second year mark. Sometimes a mark from an industrial,
sandwich year might be included. Compensation may be applied.
A poor mark in one subject may be compensated by a good mark in
another. Some judgement is exercised in deciding this and the
class boundaries, thus introducing a small element of luck from
year to year. Another system is to allocate a higher class to
a candidate who may have shown exceptional ability in one or two
exams. This introduces subjectivity, and therefore an element
of chance. A common assumption has been that the student cohort
varies negligibly from year to year, and so the same distributions
of classification are often ensured by processing the marks statistically.
This is invalid, if there are significant variations in the students'
abilities from year to year. There may be an argument for ensuring
that the process itself is uniform nationally.
3.4.2 Certainly in science and engineering there
is a wide disparity between university departments in how the
students are taught and assessed, and in the expectations of them
regarding motivation, independence, and originality, and in how
they perform. Teaching covers the gamut from a demanding intellectual
formation down to rote learning. Assessment varies from rigorous
examinations, to primed questions, to assessment by coursework,
and may include practical project work.
3.4.3 The external examiner system, which
is supposed to ensure parity of standards, frequently fails to
do so. External examiners usually do not know the details of how
the students have been aided in various ways or how closely the
material in examination questions has been covered. They may not
know how the raw marks may have been treated before appearing
on a final spreadsheet. Rarely are boundary cases the subject
of a student interview. The external examiners have probably been
appointed through personal knowledge. My view is that degree standards
in a subject vary greatly between universities.
3.4.4 It seems to me that formally providing
more information about a candidate's marks beyond the degree classification
may have as many disadvantages as advantages. For example, if
these corresponded to a poor lower second, would they harm the
graduate's chances of employment? On the other hand, it could
be helpful to the student for their tutor to informally discuss
them with him. A report on the student's skills is perhaps unlikely
to be perfectly honest. However, the university could provide
a general statement of the qualities the graduate should possess
as a result of his education.
3.4.5 There would be more confidence in
degrees, if only the more academically qualified young people
took them (20% or less of the age group). There is a strong case
for reducing the number of degree courses and replacing them with
training certificates or diplomas for technical education. Perhaps
something could also be decided about the role of a university
as opposed to a technical training college.
3.4.6 One might consider appointing anonymous
examiners to courses.
3.4.7 One might consider ranking degree
courses.
3.4.8 I have come across widespread, unmistakable
cases of plagiarism, which were predominantly committed by non-EU
students, despite them having been warned against it. My view
is that this might be allowed once, but not twice. The first time,
the work should be repeated and the student should be required
to pay a marking fee, whilst the lecturer should be paid for the
additional work. The second time, the student should be expelled
from the course with no refund of fees.
3.5 Student support and engagement
3.5.1 Students who lack the necessary skills
and knowledge should not be enrolled on degree courses since there
is an increased risk of non-completion. This means setting the
entry qualifications sufficiently high and holding an interview
in at least the dubious cases.
3.5.2 Loss of motivation is another problem.
Students should be encouraged to discuss any disillusions regularly,
and their tutors should attempt to overcome them, including persuading
the university to make any necessary and possible changes.
3.5.3 In my opinion all students on degree
courses should receive a full grant. Perhaps this cannot be afforded
when 40-50% of the year-group attend university. In this case
it makes sense to award the full grant to the, say 20%, best qualified
upon entry, so that any others will have to rely on loans. Alternatively,
there could be an equivalent scholarship scheme. Students will
have to consider whether obtaining a degree is going to benefit
them, or whether an alternative education would be more advantageous
for them.
4 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 National minimum entry qualifications
for all degree courses should be set, both in level and in the
nature of the examination.
4.2 The marks for coursework in each subject
in both qualifying and university examinations should be a small
percentage of the final mark.
4.3 Abandon entry quotas for less qualified
students from poorer backgrounds, and ensure multiple routes to
universities are available.
4.4 Ensure lecturers have time for research
by restricting the amount of teaching and administration they
have.
4.5 Ensure lecturers recruited are capable
of research.
4.6 Develop a better pay structure and career
path for UK researchers.
4.7 Restrict the numbers of temporary foreign
researchers according to the economic importance of the research.
4.8 Develop a network of specialised research
centres where the lecturers and researchers undertake their research.
Consider the French model for this.
4.9 Consider a national process for determining
degree classifications and distributions.
4.10 Appoint external examiners on a national
basis.
4.11 Require at least two examiners to be
present for an examination board to be validly constituted.
4.12 Universities should consider providing
a general statement of the qualities the degree course was intended
to develop in the student.
4.13 Only the more academically able students
should attend degree courses.
4.14 Provide more technical training courses
at different levels.
4.15 Decide the meaning and purpose of a
university.
4.16 Appoint anonymous examiners to (anonymous)
courses.
4.17 Officially rank degree courses.
4.18 Students committing plagiarism should
pay for remarking in the first instance, and, if it is repeated,
should be expelled without refund of fees.
4.19 The department should actively solicit
any expressions of disillusion and attempt to remedy the situation.
4.20 Award full grants or scholarships to
the most qualified degree course entrants only.
January 2009
| 
