Memorandum 20
Submission from the Institute of Physics
STUDENTS AND
UNIVERSITIES
Summary of key points
Admissions:
— A major issue for admissions to STEM
subjects is that there is now strong evidence that A-levels and
equivalent qualifications show enormous variation in relative
difficulty. It is necessary for the government to accept that
these differences exist and develop mechanisms by which students
who take harder A-levels, such as physics, receive appropriate
recognition in the admissions process.— The diplomas represent
a significant challenge to university admissions tutors. The problem
is most acute in physics, which traditionally requires two specific
A-levels for entrance: physics and mathematics. The Advanced Science
Diploma's principal learning will be required to cover all the
sciences, ie material equivalent to a little less than the AS
content of current A-levels. It is difficult to see how it will
be seen as a sensible route into pure science at university.
The balance between teaching and research:
— Financial studies have shown that teaching
in physics and chemistry has been underfunded by around 20% over
a long period of time. HEFCE provided short-term, extra funding
at this level for some vulnerable subjects, including physics
and chemistry. However, the extra funding is not permanent and
its eventual withdrawal would be a retrograde step that could
lead to further closures of physics departments.— There
is a tension between teaching and research that has been compounded
by the advent of fEC, which has introduced the possibility of
researchers claiming part of their salary on research contracts,
and potentially using this as a means to buy themselves out of
teaching.
Degree classification:
— There appears to be no coherent reason for
the current system of degree classification. In particular, the
distinction between an upper and lower second, which occurs near
the peak in the distribution of marks and which can be important
for future careers, is arbitrary and unfair.— Europeans
do not consider our Masters' programmes to be at a comparable
level to their own. In the continued absence of any sort of UK
leadership on the Bologna Process, there will be no analysis of
the potential issues. By the time the problems of employability
and, possibly, the reduced attractiveness of our programmes to
international students are realised, it will be too late.
Student support and engagement:
— Non-completion of university programmes
is a complex area. If universities are being encouraged, by the
widening participation agenda, to sweep their net wider to allow
more access, it is likely that they will be taking more risks.
They should not subsequently be penalised if their completion
rate falls. — It appears that the introduction of top-up
fees has not inhibited students from entering university, although
the long-term effect of the debts on postgraduate recruitment
has yet to be revealed. It could be sensible, for example, for
physics graduates who enter teaching to have their debt repayments
made on their behalf so long as they remained in the profession.
ADMISSIONS
1. The process for admission to universities
can vary enormously, not only between universities but also within
a given university between different subjects. For example, it
is common for, say, a Russell Group university to be selecting
heavily in English while struggling to fill its quota in engineering.
It follows that the processes for admission will be quite different
in these different areas.
2. A major issue for admissions to STEM subjects
is that there is now strong evidence that A-levels and equivalent
qualifications show enormous variation in relative difficulty.
A report commissioned by the SCORE partnership[41]
and undertaken by the CEM Centre at the University of Durham demonstrated
that the sciences and mathematics are amongst the most difficult
of all[42].
Currently, the government, in public at least, insists that all
A-levels are of equal difficulty. The majority of university subjects
do not require specific A-levels for entry but instead rely on
the UCAS points tariff. However, this tariff implicitly assumes
equal difficulty of all assessments; it follows that students
who are unsure are likely to be drawn to the A-levels where it
is easier to achieve higher grades. Given that school, A-level
league tables do not distinguish between subjects either, there
are clearly strong forces militating against the take up of science
and mathematics A-levels. It is necessary first for the government
to accept that these differences exist and second, to develop
some mechanism by which students who take the harder A-levels
have some sort of recognition of the fact in the admissions process;
by doing so, this will demonstrate the government's commitment
to increase numbers studying STEM subjects.
3. The diplomas represent a significant
challenge to university admissions tutors, particularly the phase
4 science diplomas, which have not yet emerged as having a clear
purpose and constituency. The problem is most acute in physics,
which traditionally requires two specific A-levels for entrance:
physics and mathematics. The Advanced Science Diploma's principal
learning will be required to cover all the sciences, which means
that, at best, it will cover material equivalent to a little less
than the AS content of current A-levels. Therefore, students wishing
to follow physics programmes would need both to top up their physics
with a stand-alone A2 course, and a full A-level in mathematics,
both to be taken in parallel with the Science Diploma. In addition,
the workplace emphasis of the principal learning would lead to
some problems in teaching basic science. Given the very tight
timescale for the Science Diploma and the insistence that it has
the same structure as the vocational diplomas, it is very hard
to see how it will be seen as a sensible route into pure science
at university.
4. In principle, aptitude tests could be
a sensible means of distinguishing between students who are talented
and those that are merely well-prepared, which could be an effective
tool for widening participation (WP). However, the main motivation
appears to come from the most popular universities, who would
want to use the tests to distinguish between the large numbers
of candidates with top grades at A-level.
5. The government sets targets for HE participation
regardless of the strategic needs of the country. As a consequence,
university finances have been driven by the choices of often ill-informed
students who have not acquired a coherent set of post-16 qualifications.
The outcome has been massive student growth in certain areas,
for example drama and media studies, while, as a proportion of
all students, science and engineering have fallen. The notion
of a "HE market", in which students make decisions based
on employment opportunity, is deeply flawed. There is almost no
means for any students to obtain neutral and reliable data about
career and salary expectations in different subject areas and
there is an urgent need for such data. Given that the Student
Loan Company carries salary information for all graduates for
many years, it should be possible for such data to be generated
quickly and reliably for the first few years of employment.
6. It is unfair to put the burden of WP
on universities and such pressures, coupled with penalties for
high drop-out rates, are almost inevitably going to lead to the
lowering of standards. We note also, however, that many universities
impose conditions on their departments only to take people with
good A-levels.
7. It is difficult to see how a fair access
and admissions system can operate with the present arrangements
whereby universities make offers before A-level results are known.
Currently, university departments tend to make offers above the
true level they are prepared to accept because they cannot afford
to have students registering insurance offers. Consequently, prospective
students are faced with a barrage of high offers, which may well
deter those nervous of their ability. The system also makes the
predicted grades of teachers more important than they should be
and, in the more popular courses, can place an undue emphasis
on interviews, which may work against those students from lower
socio-economic backgrounds.
8. A truly fair admissions system would
select on the basis of ability to complete the course and not
only on how well one has performed in public examinations. However,
there is a particular problem in some subjects, including sciences
and languages, where prior knowledge is essential. Here ability
alone is not enough, some knowledge is required, and this is a
substantial barrier to WP.
THE BALANCE
BETWEEN TEACHING
AND RESEARCH
9. Detailed financial studies undertaken
by the Institute and the Royal Society of Chemistry have shown
that teaching in physics and chemistry has been underfunded by
around 20% over a long period of time[43].
Following a spate of departmental closures, HEFCE provided short-term,
extra funding at this level for some vulnerable subjects, including
physics and chemistry. As a result, departments are now breaking
even, many of them for the first time in decades, and it is clear
that the current level of funding is a better match to the real
cost of teaching these subjects. However, the extra funding is
not permanent and, although HEFCE has indicated that it will continue
for the next few years, its withdrawal would be a retrograde step
that could lead to further closures of physics departments.
10. The tension between teaching and research
is apparent to anyone with experience of HE. The majority of,
although by no means all, academics consider research to be more
important to them and their careers than teaching. The plethora
of various research fellowships (such as those offered by the
Royal Society, among others, which have been of great benefit
to the UK in helping to retain its leading researchers) and the
paucity of teaching fellowships is testament to that situation.
A recent addition to the tension, as a consequence of the introduction
of fEC, has been the possibility of researchers claiming part
of their salary on research contracts, and potentially using this
as a means to buy themselves out of teaching. The advent of fEC,
therefore, is likely to lead to the most prolific researchers
spending less of their time teaching. While this might arguably
improve research outputs, it is probably better to leave the balance
between teaching and research to be decided by the internal management
structures within the universities rather than have it distorted
by the unpredictability of research funding.
11. The Institute accredits all UK physics
degrees[44].
Our experience in physics is that there is considerable integration
of teaching and research and that academics are always keen to
introduce leading edge science into their teaching, which is important
as that provides the stimulus, potential excitement and enthusiasm
for undergraduates. Indeed this process has led to problems, in
that curricula are becoming overburdened with material as more
comes in, but little is squeezed out.
12. In physics and in science in general,
there are some excellent examples of teaching innovation, such
as the Physics Innovations CETL[45],
which is a joint project between the Open University (leading
on electronic enhancements to learning) and the University of
Leicester (leading on problem-based learning). However, there
is a need for more of these projects across the UK. A major issue
here has been the RAE, which has tended to focus activity in research
and many staff who have had teaching interests have been made
to feel second-class. Although some universities have now introduced
teaching routes to chairs, the lack of an adequate funding stream
and the culture of universities do not allow research and teaching
to be seen on an equal footing. The Institute would like to see
every department, certainly every physics department, to have
at least one member of staff specialising in teaching innovation,
which is common practice in American state universities. Perhaps,
a more practical solution would be to encourage a community of
such academics which can cater for a range of universities. Having
someone active in pedagogy research available to a physics department
would ensure contact with people active in frontline physics research.
However, a way to pay for these academics will need to be determined.
13. The Institute's degree accreditation
process requires visits to all physics departments and to some
extent provides a guarantee of a high-quality minimum provision
in the subject, although there is still considerable variation.
Where external accreditation is not available, it is difficult
to see how any minimum standard is maintained at the subject level.
14. The issue of determining excellence
in research is one that has been the subject of numerous recent
consultations as HEFCE attempts to find a fair and acceptable
replacement for the RAE. We do not wish to add to that debate
now. However, it is clear that there is no comparable measure
of teaching excellence. The overly bureaucratic system of QAA
subject visits did make a considerable difference to the support
and administrative coherence of university teaching, although
its effect on the actual teaching itself is arguable. But the
subject visits were so disruptive and time consuming that no one
should countenance their return.
15. Many universities take the issue of
staff development seriously, within which the development of excellent
teaching skills is a key factor that is resourced through the
provision of time for training and the opportunity for mentored
practice.
16. The role of teaching fellows in universities
is a very grey area. Often, in science subjects, the teaching
fellow has funding because a senior member of staff has found
a way to buy time out of teaching. However, there is almost no
career route for such people as essentially all appointments to
permanent academic positions in science are on the basis of research
ability, although candidates may be expected to have had some
experience in teaching. For the most part, any young scientist
who specialises in teaching too early in their career is placing
a significant barrier in the path of their subsequent progression.
DEGREE CLASSIFICATION
17. The QAA is essentially concerned with
the quality and consistency of process and plays essentially no
role in maintaining standards or in the comparability of standards
between different universities. In addition, within a given university,
although there is again considerable standardisation of process,
there have been no attempts to have a common standard for degree
classification. In fact, where some universities have tried to
do so, usually introducing a one-size-fits-all approach to the
treatment of marks, it has led to unfairness and obvious inconsistency
of treatment. This is a very complex area where it is difficult
to see how any realistic progress can be made and whether such
attempts would be worthwhile. Different universities have different
missions and these are generally recognised.
18. There is an issue with respect to differences
in standards of degree classifications in such areas as teaching
and eligibility for funding for further study, where it can be
important to have achieved a first or upper second class degree.
It may be that a more sophisticated mechanism of discrimination
is required in these areas.
19. The system of external examiners leaves
room for improvement. When the system works well, the external
examiner is a critical friend, who can help improve courses enormously.
However, the current system is open to abuse and would perhaps
benefit from closer adherence to the QAA's code of practice on
external examining.[46]
It may be that external examiners should be organised in a different
manner to ensure genuine independence and to promote greater consistency
within a subject.
20. The Institute concurs with section 3.21
of Professor Paul Ramsden's contribution to the DIUS debate on
the future of higher education, Teaching and the Student Experience,[47]
that there appears to be no intellectually coherent reason for
the current system of degree classification. In particular, the
distinction between an upper and lower second, which occurs near
the peak in the distribution of marks and which can be important
for future careers, is arbitrary and unfair. Just about the only
thing that can be said in favour of the current classification
scheme is that it is historically stable. While it is not difficult
to think of replacements that avoid the trap of arbitrary class
distinctions, for example with an academic record, it is much
more of a problem to invent a robust scheme that takes into account
the variability between subjects and universities.
21. It is of concern that, in seeking evidence
for the inquiry, the Committee did not mention once the Bologna
Process; in no other European country would this be possible.
We understand that the QAA will announce, in due course, that
English degrees are compatible with the Bologna Process, an announcement
that will presumably remove any pressure for change. However,
colleagues from across Europe inform us that they do not consider
our Masters' programmes to be at a comparable level to their own.
This remark applies particularly to the four-year, integrated
masters that form the professional graduate route in the UK in
physics, chemistry, engineering and a few other subjects. In the
continued absence of any sort of leadership in the UK on this
issue, it is unlikely that there will be real analysis of potential
problems. Nonetheless, there are already reports of employers
questioning the comparability of our Masters' programmes and the
large influx of mainland European scientists into UK academia
may also be relevant. Our fear is that, by the time the problems
of employability and, possibly, the reduced attractiveness of
our programmes to international students are realised, it will
be too late. Professor Ramsden in his report (section 2.9) states
that the "Competition between UK and overseas universities
to attract international students is likely to intensify…";
the UK's blas
attitude to the Bologna Process is an obvious disadvantage
particularly for STEM subjects.
22. Plagiarism is undoubtedly a major problem
in many areas. In mathematical subjects such as physics, mathematics
and engineering, there is a particular issue in that in solving
a problem, students will often independently use identical methods,
which makes it very hard to decide if anyone has copied from another
person. The tendency, therefore, is to concentrate more of the
assessment into unseen examinations which removes the problem
but which is regrettable from a pedagogical point of view.
STUDENT SUPPORT
AND ENGAGEMENT
23. The Institute has considered the incorporation
of undergraduate students into its degree accreditation process
but rejected the idea on the grounds that their restricted experience
of a single university and lack of knowledge of assessment and
many other important issues would make them ineffective.
24. Non-completion of university programmes is
a complex area. On the one hand, universities might be expected
only to admit students who are capable of completing the course
but, on the other, there will always be students who fall by the
wayside and others who will find themselves in the wrong environment.
So, the key question is: what is a reasonable completion rate?
This issue is also intimately tied to WP. If universities are
being encouraged to sweep their net wider to allow more access,
it is likely that they will be taking more risks. They should
not subsequently be penalised if their completion rate falls.
In many European countries, the admissions process is much less
selective than in the UK and the corresponding failure rates are
higher. There is a strong argument that this system is more likely
to preserve standards than one in which non-completion is seen
as a failure of the system.
25. In physics, engineering and some other
sciences, one of the most frequent reasons for non-completion
is the lack of preparation for the mathematical content of the
course. The physics in A-level physics is not described mathematically
but it most certainly is at university. One way of combating this
interface problem is to have teacher fellows—schoolteachers
seconded for a year or so to university departments—who
are able to work with academics on this issue. The Institute has
piloted this type of approach as part of its HEFCE funded Stimulating
Physics project.[48]
26. Despite widely expressed fears, it appears
that the introduction of top-up fees has not inhibited students
from entering university, although the long-term effect of the
debts on postgraduate recruitment has yet to be revealed. It is
also not clear how the job market will respond to the existence
of such impoverished recruits. In engineering and physical sciences,
four-year first degrees are now the norm for those who are taking
the subject seriously. The extra year means another year of debt
accumulation. Furthermore, PhD courses are now drifting towards
four years and, while these may not cause students to accrue further
debt, they do not allow loans to be paid off either. There is
the prospect of STEM PhD graduates emerging at the age of 26 or
27 with no money and substantial debt. That does not appear to
be a very attractive proposition.
27. It could be sensible, for example, for
physics graduates who enter teaching to have their debt repayments
made on their behalf so long as they remained in the profession.
This approach could make it financially advantageous to enter
teaching while removing the controversy associated with differential
pay that schools seem to find so unappealing.
December 2008
41 www.sciencecouncil.org/documents/SCOREStatementMarch2007.pdf Back
42
www.iop.org/Media/Press
Releases/press_30373.html Back
43
www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_21216.pdf Back
44
www.iop.org/activity/policy/Degree_Accreditation/index.html Back
45
www.open.ac.uk/picetl Back
46
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section4/default.asp Back
47
www.dius.gov.uk/policy/teaching_and_student_exp.html Back
48
www.stimulatingphysics.org Back
|
