Memorandum 67
Submission from the Biosciences Federation
STUDENTS AND
UNIVERSITIES
Introduction
The Biosciences Federation (BSF) is a single
authority representing the UK's biological expertise, providing
independent opinion to inform public policy and promoting the
advancement of the biosciences. The Federation was established
in 2002, and is actively working to influence policy and strategy
in biology-based research—including funding and the interface
with other disciplines—and in school and university teaching.
It is also concerned about the translation of research into benefits
for society, and about the impact of legislation and regulations
on the ability of those working in teaching and research to deliver
effectively. The Federation brings together the strengths of 45
member organisations (plus nine associate members), including
the Institute of Biology. The Institute of Biology is an independent
and charitable body charged by Royal Charter to further the study
and application of the UK's biology and allied biosciences. It
has 14,000 individual members and represents 37 additional affiliated
societies (see Appendix). This represents a cumulative membership
of over 65,000 individuals, covering the full spectrum of biosciences
from physiology and neuroscience, biochemistry and microbiology,
to ecology, taxonomy and environmental science.
Summary
— Bioscience courses have not yet been
allocated additional funding for learning facilities to allow
the course content to reflect the discipline in the 21st century.
— At most HEIs. teaching quality and the
scholarship of teaching and learning still count for considerably
less than research in determining progress up the career ladder.
— A culture that encourages and recognizes
teaching excellence needs to be established.
— The current system of degree classification
does not assure equivalence between HEIs.
— There needs to be provision of funds
into the biosciences to allow students access to top-rate equipment
and to facilitate student placements for enhancing employability.
1: Admissions
(Effectiveness of the process for admission to
Higher Education)
i. The Government needs to appreciate that
many vocational qualifications prepare students less well for
University than A levels.
(Government targets for Higher Education participation)
ii. The UK needs to be more strategic about the
areas of HE in which it wishes widening participation to be focused.
(Widening participation initiatives, developing
and promoting fair access and admissions policies)
iii. The Government should ensure that school
provision, qualifications and assessments facilitate widening
participation. The school education system favours the better
off. For example the policy of being able to re-submit coursework
and re-sit assessments discriminates against parents in the lower
economic groups who do not know how to help their child and/or
are unable to pay for re-sits. This is not about resourcing of
schools but about creating a level playing field for assessing
the pupils.
iv. There needs to be a clear, widely publicised
provision for under-privileged students, so that financial considerations
are not a factor in actually making an application. Publicity
of these provisions, together with the courses and opportunities
available in the Higher Education sector should be improved in
schools where students do not commonly proceed to further education.
2: The balance between teaching and research
(Levels of funding for, and the balance between,
teaching and research in UK HEIs)
v. The playing field is by no means level
for research and teaching, with the Research Assessment Exercise
driving most HEIs to put undue emphasis on the former. In general,
academic staff are appointed on the basis of their research record
rather than on their ability to teach or interest in teaching
innovation. There is a perception that researchers bringing income
into the University are more "highly prized". This should
not be the case as excellence in teaching is paramount to creating
a world class education system. The creation of University Teacher
posts has gone some way to resolve this but perhaps this could
be developed further.
vi. The question of funding will result in different
answers from those whose primary interest is in biological research
and those that are more strongly interested in teaching their
subject. Funding is never as high as one would wish. It is more
difficult for young lecturers starting out to get funded or decide
where they should put their greatest effort.
vii. Research funding gets more and more
difficult, with success rates from grant applications being about
one in 25, unless the lecturer already has a track record. In
some universities a higher proportion of staff time is given to
research and there is sometimes a subsidy of research by teaching,
especially in research intensive departments. In the less intensive
research departments there is often a budget deficit.
viii. Lack of adequate funding for biological
research degrees in British universities leads to skills shortages
for example within the pharmaceutical sector. This has led to
Learned Societies such as the British Pharmacological Society
(BPS) providing schemes to maintain taught practical classes in
UK universities. The BPS has seen the number of universities who
fit their funding criteria drop from 12 to eight, which can only
exacerbate skills shortages in this area. It would appear that
the government has responsibility as it set the level of funding
for practicals.
(The quality of teaching provision and learning
facilities in UK)
ix. The quality of teaching provision is
generally good across the sector in the biosciences. However,
it is disappointing that, unlike chemistry and physics, bioscience
courses have not yet been allocated additional funding for learning
facilities to allow the course content to reflect the discipline
in the 21st century. To do this successfully is at least as costly
as teaching physics and chemistry, requiring expensive specialist
equipment and facilities (eg animal houses, plant growth facilities)
and adequate provision for practical and field work.
(Availability and adequacy of training in teaching
methods for UK academics and the importance of teaching excellence)
x. Although most HEIs now insist that new lecturing
staff undergo formal training in teaching (normally an HEA-accredited
Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education),
the reality is that this is often not regarded as a high priority
either by University senior managers or (by association) by the
participants themselves. At most HEIs, teaching quality and the
scholarship of teaching and learning still count for considerably
less than research in determining progress up the career ladder.
(Responsibilities of the Government and HEFCE
in assuring the quality of teaching provision and learning opportunities
in UK HEIs)
xi. The issue is not one of assuring quality
of teaching provision and learning opportunities in UK HEIs (which
is already addressed through the work of the Quality Assurance
Agency) but of establishing a culture that encourages and recognizes
teaching excellence.
3: Degree classification
(Methodologies, standardization, quality assurance)
xii. The current system does not assure equivalence
between HEIs. The methodology for calculating degree classifications
varies widely across disciplines and HEIs and even within HEIs.
Few other countries have the same system of classifying degrees
as the UK.
xiii. Standardisation is extremely important
as it is clear that many believe a 2:1 from for example Oxbridge
is of higher standard than a 2:1 from for example an ex-college/polytechnic.
External examiners tend to be drawn from similar era of institutions.
If the QAA were to standardize these then some newer institutions
would probably not ever award 1sts—this comes from the better
students achieving entry at the more competitive institutes in
the first place
xiv. Classification boundaries are arbitrary
(the bottom 2i is effectively identical to the top 2ii) so there
may be some merit in letting the transcript speak for itself.
On the other hand, classified degrees have a "currency"
that employers understand. It is important that any revised system
of classification is readily understood by employers and facilitates
the comparison of applicants from very different HEIs
x. 1st class degrees vary between institutions.
Failure to recognize such differences in rigid application forms
such as for foundation year and specialist training posts in medicine
leads to difficulties in grading applicants. The institution granting
the degree as well as its class must be available to make a valid
assessment
xv. There is a general perception that there
has been a shift in the distribution of degree classifications
with many more students receiving a 2:1. Without a 2:1 it is impossible
to progress to many post-graduate studies e.g PhD. Therefore,
the introduction of Higher education Academic Record may be a
more accurate reflection of a student's overall academic ability
and achievements. Whilst there maybe instances of grade (degree
class inflation) in a few places, we still need a substantial
body of evidence to be certain that this is a cause of general
concern.
xvi. Undoubtedly with increasing student
numbers since the 1980s (and especially the last decade or so),
more and more degrees are being awarded, and as with A-levels,
more students are getting top grades. This has caused many critics
to be concerned about falling standards. Inevitably with more
students graduating, the "scarcity" value of having
a degree declines.
xvii. The structure of university degrees
has evolved, so we are not comparing like with like. There is
more modularity and more course work within the present day degree
structure, whereas in the past, end of year examinations provided
the major, if not the only form of assessment.
(Student plagiarism in HE, the availability and
effectiveness of strategies to identify, penalise and combat it)
xviii. Plagiarism is possible to detect,
but there needs to be a will to detect it. Plagiarism from the
internet is currently a problem but this can be deterred (rather
than combated) in lots of ways; innovative assessments- assessments
requiring personal input; use of detection software. Advice is
available- from the plagiarism advisory service and from the HEA
and, especially, the HEA subject centres. Institutions require
clear, concise policy on plagiarism carefully explained to the
students at the outset of their studies so they are fully aware
of the consequences. There should be provision and training of
staff in anti-plagiarism tools/software for staff.
4: Student support and engagement
xix. There needs to be increased flexibility
between modes of attendance. Since most "wastage" occurs
in year one we need to adopt strategies as highlighted by several
well known projects to ease the transition into university but,
very importantly, to ensure that students are on the right course.
Institutions need to create a sense of belonging and promote those
activities which encourage the "socialisation" of the
student. Lifelong learning opportunities would be more conducive
to keeping students rather than rigid government targets
xx. Government and HEFCE need to be more strategic
and put funds where there is identified employer need. They need
to provide funds into the biosciences to allow students access
to top-rate equipment and to facilitate student placements for
enhancing employability.
This response was written with contributions
from the Biosciences Education Committee, the Institute of Biology,
the British Pharmacological Society and the Society of Endocrinology.
| 
