How universities are turning the corner on grade inflation

This follows concerns that academic standards have not prevented unexplained increases in First and 2:1 awards – known as grade inflation.

This publication looks at the positive progress universities have made on protecting degree standards since last year and beyond. It draws from a review of degree outcomes statements, a survey with 34 respondents and .

What progress have universities made?

Following increases in upper awards (First and 2:1) during the pandemic, universities are seeing levels return to levels closer than would be expected in normal circumstances.

Data from 2021–22 shows a ��ϲʿ��-wide 3.9 percentage point (pp) decrease of upper awards compared to 2019–20. Upper awards also decreased in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but by less.

In 2021–22, over 919,940 students graduated from university – something they can all be proud of. Whether students achieve a Third or a First, they are meeting learning outcomes and rigorous academic standards.

What action are universities taking?

Delivering on commitments

Universities implemented the ��ϲʿ�� Standing Committee for Quality Assessment’s (��ϲʿ��SCQA) statement of intent from 2019. The higher education sector has delivered on all four commitments with high engagement.

Making degree outcomes statements

Over 118 universities have published degree outcomes statements in England and Wales. These public documents scrutinise degree outcome levels. We've published the list of statements in full.

Increasing transparency

University policies are now much more transparent to students. Universities are explaining how they calculate the classification of awards, what the different degree classifications mean and how external examiners ensure consistency between institutions.

Focusing on quality and standards

We are seeing a more strategic focus on quality and standards. Universities are investing in data analytics and refocusing governance to strengthen standards.

Improving training

Protecting standards will always be an ongoing process. We know there is more to do. Throughout 2023, we are working with and to .

What does the long-term data say?

The numbers speak for themselves. Between 2011–12 and 2021–22, the proportion of upper awards has increased from 66% to 78%. Looking at first class awards, we've seen increases from 17% in 2011–12 to 32% in 2021–22.

However, compared to 2020–21, the number of Firsts awarded has decreased by 4pp.

How can we explain this shift?

Improving teaching

Academics are continually improving their teaching as encouraged by the Teaching Excellence Framework, enhancement-led institutional reviews and quality enhancement reviews.

Internally, university strategies also drive improved outcomes across their student body. To support this, universities are investing in digital infrastructure and professional training for teaching and learning. And of course, each year, students continue to bring hard work and dedication to their studies.

Closing awarding gaps

In this time, universities have put considerable resources into work to close awarding gaps – such as by working to create more inclusive learning environments. Progress here does not compromise standards, but may alter the proportion of upper awards.

The gap between women and men achieving upper awards reduced from 3.5pp in 2018–19 to 1.9pp in 2020–21.
The gap in upper awards between students with a disability and those without reduced from 2.2pp in 2018–19 to 1pp in 2020–21.
The gap between white students and Black students awarded an upper award reduced by 4.2 pp, from 20.7% in 2018–19 to 16.5% in 2020–21.

The Covid-19 pandemic

In the last few years, the pandemic has made progress more difficult. There was a 6pp increase in upper awards between 2018–19 and 2019–20. This happened following temporary but necessary measures to ensure students were not unfairly disadvantaged by the disruption.

How did universities respond?

It's unclear whether these factors alone explain the increases we have seen over time. To better understand the driving factors, the commissioned research in 2018. Then after sector consultation in 2019, the ��ϲʿ��SCQA published its statement of intent based on the principles of a transparent, reliable and fair degree classification system.

Universities ��ϲʿ�� (U��ϲʿ��) and also made a further commitment in 2022 related to the exceptional circumstances as we emerged from the pandemic. In England, we committed to returning to pre-pandemic levels of upper awards.

Publication

After the pandemic – our commitment

During the pandemic, universities introduced measures to mitigate the impact of subsequent disruption on students’ academic performance. At the same time, there was an increase in upper awards. It was important that universities adapted their policies so that students were not unfairly disadvantaged.

But those emergency measures must not have a long-term inflationary effect now that teaching and learning has returned to normal. That’s why in July 2022, U��ϲʿ�� and GuildHE came together to make a commitment to degree classifications after the pandemic. This meant looking back at the progress we were making before the pandemic and asking higher education providers to reflect on how they will return to those pre-pandemic levels.

Take a look

Since 2019, the higher education sector’s work has been guided by four commitments:

1. Describing the classification system

In 2019, we published ��ϲʿ��-wide . The document explains the skills and attributes a student will demonstrate to achieve a First, 2:1, 2:2 or Third. The descriptions sit alongside other sector-owned frameworks and since May 2022 have a formal status as a in England.

How does it work?

Degree classification descriptors are not a strict criteria. Imposing something top down would stifle the freedom of higher education providers to innovate their assessment practice.

Instead, they are a common blueprint to help with transparency and consistency. When talking about a 2:1, for example, it isn’t unreasonable to expect the higher education sector to be referring to the same level of achievement.

What's the impact?

Encouragingly, 97% of institutions that responded to our survey are integrating and aligning the descriptors into their academic rules.

But their use goes beyond this – for example:

mapping sector-level descriptors to ensure alignment with institution-level or subject-level ones
supporting the training and development of academics and external examiners, which enables the descriptors to support consistent marking judgements
guiding the course approval process and assessment design
supporting students to understand their academic progress and achievement

2. Understanding student outcomes data

While sector-level interventions are helpful, higher education providers also need space to reflect on their own data. We asked English and Welsh universities to produce degree outcomes statements.

How does it work?

These are short public documents signed off by governing boards that:

review trends over several years
bring together regulations and policies that protect degree standards
outline actions and progress

Institutions have now published over 118 degree outcomes statements. They are impressive and supply a huge evidence base for the sector.

What's the impact?

Increasing focus on quality and standards
- Degree outcomes statements go beyond describing processes. They act as a forum to show how degree standards complement other priorities, like reducing the awarding gap and updating teaching and learning strategies.
- Crucially, the statements have encouraged higher education providers to free more space within governing bodies to interrogate quality and standards.
Generating action and change
- �ċ�ċ�ċ�ċ�ċ�ċUniversities are producing meaningful degree outcomes statements. For example, they are identifying areas that may need more focus, and then convening task and finish groups to have searching conversations and start addressing challenges right across the institution.
- 83% of our survey respondents had set actions or intended to do so because of their degree outcomes statements. It’s clear this is not a tick box exercise.
Using data to intervene quickly
- �ċ�ċ�ċ�ċ�ċ�ċThere’s been a drive for improved statistical information for exam boards and programme teams. Hosting data on dashboards allows universities to adopt a more proactive approach to degree standards.
- During the pandemic, we saw how quickly academic rules can adapt without compromising their integrity. We are seeing examples of leaner governance processes, allowing for prompt interventions to protect standards.
Improving transparency for students and staff
- �ċ�ċ�ċ�ċ�ċ�ċStudents are receiving clearer information about how classifications are calculated and what they mean. Staff also benefit from more transparency. Programme teams are taking greater ownership to understand how their practice compares with others. But we know to ensure the statements are relevant they need to be regularly updated.
- 87% of universities that responded to our survey have already revisited their statement at least once since it was introduced, with updates to data, policies, and actions.

3. Improving how higher education providers calculate degrees

University courses are diverse, so we can expect some variation in how institutions calculate their classifications. But this shouldn’t undermine the comparability of degrees.

How does it work?

To ensure fairness across university courses, we published six fundamental principles for effective degree algorithm design.

What's the impact?

We know these principles are having an impact, with 93% of universities responding to our survey already reviewing their policies against the principles or intending to at their next regular review cycle for academic policies. With these principles, the dial has now shifted, and higher education providers are undertaking more frequent reviews.

A taster of what this looks like for universities includes:

Interrogating the combined impact of an algorithm. This is to remove the cumulative and inflationary potential within an algorithm design.
Ending the use of academic discretion at exam boards to ensure fairness for all students.
Minimising the use of discounting, particularly at the final level of study or for core modules. This ensures the final classification is a genuine reflection of student achievement.
Greater consistency in how algorithms weight levels of study. For example, drawing from the four weighting proportions the sector now widely uses, as appropriate for specific course types.
Stricter borderline policies to ensure practice does not rewrite grade boundaries. For example, ensuring that a 2:1 is typically a mark of 60–69, or a 2:2 is typically a mark of 50–59.
Giving students simple explanations of how algorithms work. For example, using online calculators to help students track their achievement.

4. Independent scrutiny and comparability

As autonomous bodies, universities set their own curriculum. But with this diversity, how can we ensure degrees compare across universities?

The answer is a system of independent academic experts who critically compare standards. We call these individuals external examiners. Over time, the role has evolved, and we need to ensure we have a modern, robust, and future-proofed system. Universities ��ϲʿ�� (U��ϲʿ��), and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)’s put us firmly on this track.

How does it work?

The principles make sure degree standards and comparability are at the core of the external examiner role. They’re uncompromising on the need for external examiners’ independence and clear escalation processes when an external examiner has identified a potential concern. Despite the fact they were only published last year, we know that almost all our survey respondents plan to review their compliance.

What's the impact?

Universities are evolving their external examiner practice by:

Helping departments across a university work together through appointing chief external examiners to provide a university-wide view. These individuals also have an active role in reviewing degree outcomes statements.
Developing a risk-based approach to external examiner workload and allocation. This involves changing the area of focus year on year to help more in depth reviews on a topic take place.
Professionalising the role of the external examiner. Practically, this means more standardised working relationships between external examiners and programme teams. Since 2016, Advance HE’s has been supporting training of external examiners across the ��ϲʿ��. Universities are also taking a greater interest in who their examiners are and increasingly monitor the diversity of their examiner cohort.
Creating more consistent opportunities for external examiner reports to be available to students. This may include improving visibility on virtual learning portals or setting aside dedicated time for student representatives to actively discuss the reports.

How did we do against our commitments?

Reviewing progress

We said: We would publish an annual review of progress against the ��ϲʿ��SCQA statement of intent.

We did: As with our previous annual reviews of progress, this publication demonstrates the significant strides the higher education sector has taken in the last few years to tackle long term increases in upper awards.

Publishing degree outcome statements

We said: Our members in England would publish degree outcomes statements by the end of 2022. These statements would describe how they will return to pre-pandemic levels.

We did: We've published a list of 118 degree outcomes statements by universities in England and Wales. The latest data shows the higher education sector is on track to return to pre-pandemic levels.

We've also continued to support higher education providers to reengage with commitments and activities paused during the pandemic. This has included running workshops, visiting institutions, and promoting our work in this area.

Strengthening governance of degree standards

We said: We would work to support governing bodies to strengthen their scrutiny of degree classification trends.

We did: We're taking forward work to strengthen governance processes around degree standards. With and , we launched a .

What role do governors have?

In our 2022 commitment, we wanted to better understand how governors protect degree standards. Governors sit within a wider governance system of committees, which drive forward the quality assurance process.

All universities we heard from provide governors with and annual quality report and discuss this with them. In England, boards also receive reports on compliance with the . Across England and Wales, governing bodies also have a role in reviewing and approving the degree outcomes statement.

Universities were confident their systems provided effective scrutiny of quality assurance. However, there was less evidence that the governing body was as effective as it could be in providing this.

How are universities supporting governors?

Involving governors earlier in the academic assurance process

This includes nominated roles for governors to attend academic board meetings, and convening joint meetings between the governing body and academic board. Universities are also establishing academic sub-committees to their board focused on academic assurance.

Recruiting a proportion of governors based on their quality assurance expertise

This means recruiting governors from inside or outside the higher education sector. Some governors have a link role related to quality, where they will have more involved responsibilities.

Providing in-depth training and induction sessions for governors

This includes specific sessions delivered by institutional leads on quality and standards. Universities are being clearer with governors at the point of recruitment about their responsibilities for academic assurance.

In our survey, we picked up a risk that responsibility for quality assurance often falls on governors with a background in higher education (such as academic nominations). Drawing from governor expertise is right. But it is also important that all governors can interrogate academic assurance processes robustly.

With and , we want to support more sustainable training that embeds and empowers all governors. To begin this work, we are hosting over the next few months.

Where do we go from here?

The higher education sector has come a huge way in the last couple of years to rebuild confidence in the value of degrees.

The sector should keep the conversation going about the classification system. No system is ever perfect, and we should be open to a healthy debate about where improvements can be made.

There’s a wealth of activity taking place across institutions. Let’s collectively learn from this, while being attentive to the risks grade inflation poses. U��ϲʿ��, and our members have brought about a step change on this issue, and we will continue to lead further sector action where necessary.

������ϲʿ������