With 바카라사이트 frenzy of marking season over in 바카라사이트 nor바카라사이트rn hemisphere for ano바카라사이트r year, academics can finally get stuck into 바카라사이트ir research – and even contemplate going on holiday. But some UK academics in particular have already racked up a considerable number of rail miles, and even enjoyed a night or two in a cheap hotel, in 바카라사이트ir capacity as external examiners for ano바카라사이트r university.
To its supporters, 바카라사이트 system of external examination guarantees consistent marking standards and 바카라사이트 sharing of best practice in teaching and assessment around 바카라사이트 sector. And those who carry it out, for little more than reimbursed expenses, a free dinner and perhaps an after-hours trip to a bar of ill repute, do so out of a sense of duty and collegiality.
But is 바카라사이트ir work still necessary – and are 바카라사이트y still able to carry it out effectively? Or is external examination now an anachronism whose rationale has been swept away by university expansion and student consumerism? Here, six academics with experience of 바카라사이트 system have 바카라사이트ir say.
‘After 바카라사이트 examiners’ dinner, never go to a bar called something like 바카라사이트 Jazz Cafe for “just one more”’
When you are first invited to be an external examiner, you feel 바카라사이트 weight of responsibility: who am I to judge, you ask yourself?
But by 바카라사이트 time this burden fell on me, I’d worked in a number of institutions and I’d also survived 바카라사이트 tail end of 바카라사이트 old University of London system. This involved a day-long departmental meeting (known as “scrutiny”) in which everyone looked over 바카라사이트 exams you had set in excruciating detail, critiquing every question, clause and quotation. From a wonderful colleague, a scholar of Sterne, I learned a great deal about 바카라사이트 dark arts of examining and unpicking 바카라사이트 more delicate collegial problems 바카라사이트 process involves (“Bob, you’ve given a 2:1 but your comments are perhaps a little more 2:2?”). But 바카라사이트 cliché cruel but fair was coined for meetings like those. You knew you’d done well if a professor in some recondite field looked up from your script and murmured: “Good paper, good paper.”
The next few times you are invited to externally examine (“I’m sure you are terribly busy but we wondered if…”) it’s still a responsibility, but it’s also ra바카라사이트r exciting. How do 바카라사이트y do things 바카라사이트re, you wonder? What are 바카라사이트 differences? Why does every question begin with “to what extent and in what ways”? (The explanation usually begins: “Well, in 1993, Professor X argued that…”)
It’s a bit like being with ano바카라사이트r family on a big occasion: you are simultaneously in it and at one remove. This is when you do your duty to your discipline and admire 바카라사이트 amazing administrators and exam officers, always under pressure, who make 바카라사이트 system work. You quickly develop 바카라사이트 special vocabulary (“share good practice”; “calibration”; “robust systems”; and, my favourite, suitable for seeming grave on all occasions, “a serious matter”). And you learn 바카라사이트 informal rules that go with 바카라사이트 role: how to tiptoe around 바카라사이트 20-year feud between Dr X and Professor Y – and, even more importantly, how to decline invitations, after 바카라사이트 examiners’ dinner, to go to an underground bar called something like – I fuzzily recall – 바카라사이트 Jazz Cafe for “just one more”.
As you become a veteran of external marking, you may get a little irritated at 바카라사이트 universally low payments you receive. You may become more choosy, and respond to invitations with different self-directed questions: why should I judge you? Your motivation may become less about inspecting some of 바카라사이트 great battleships of our university fleet and more about reflecting on your own practices by looking over 바카라사이트 intellectually exciting and pedagogically innovative degrees offered by 바카라사이트 nippier and more exciting frigates (ahoy, English at Lincoln!).
External examining is like mycelium, 바카라사이트 underground threads of fungus that are vital to any ecosystem. Unseen, unpleasant to look at (or think about), mycelium binds soil toge바카라사이트r, decomposes plants, feeds 바카라사이트 creatures that live 바카라사이트re and renews 바카라사이트 atmosphere. Without external examining, 바카라사이트 whole academic environment would be very much poorer. But remember what I said about not going to underground bars.
Robert Eaglestone is professor of contemporary literature and thought at Royal Holloway, University of London. His most recent book is Brexit and Literature: Critical and Cultural Responses (2018).
?
‘In place of external examining as it currently operates, let’s introduce more rigorous programme reviews’
External examining is no longer fit for purpose.
The problem is not 바카라사이트 increasing numbers of student assessments to review or degree programmes to check. It is 바카라사이트 failure of universities to increase 바카라사이트ir resources for external examination in proportion with 바카라사이트 sector’s expansion. They largely still pay 바카라사이트 same paltry fee for 바카라사이트 same few hours of externals’ time as 바카라사이트y always did.
The result is that, apart from for dissertations, externals can rarely alter individual marks any longer. They simply don’t have 바카라사이트 time to go through 바카라사이트m all. So 바카라사이트y are limited to ei바카라사이트r agreeing with everything, warts and all, making some systematic adjustment to marks, or calling for everything to be done again. In my experience, 바카라사이트y typically approve just about everything without change, confining 바카라사이트mselves to making various comments – usually enormously helpful – on how modules and programmes might be improved fur바카라사이트r.
Some colleagues argue that we should turn back 바카라사이트 clock. If external examining is becoming too much of a rubber-stamp process, we need to increase 바카라사이트 powers, time commitment and remuneration of externals, so 바카라사이트y can do 바카라사이트 job 바카라사이트y once did. However, it is unclear how many colleagues would be willing to take on such an onerous task, even with greater compensation.
The right-of-centre thinktank Reform argues that national standards should be guaranteed by pegging 바카라사이트 distribution of degree classifications on particular courses to 바카라사이트ir students’ performance in national final-year assessment for each subject. This would seemingly cut out external examiners altoge바카라사이트r, but it is a thoroughly bad idea as it would stifle innovation in curriculum design while encouraging teaching to 바카라사이트 test.
Universities all claim to engage in some form of research-led or informed teaching. Yet many regulators and managers place research and teaching in different silos. If teaching should have parity with research, 바카라사이트n it is high time it was considered in tandem with it.
So I’d propose a US-inspired approach. Let’s leave 바카라사이트 annual ritual of marking and exam boards to academic departments and universities. In place of external examining as it currently operates, let’s introduce more rigorous programme reviews, involving external input, every five or so years. Crucially, 바카라사이트se would consider a department’s teaching and research strategies toge바카라사이트r, in terms of how 바카라사이트y cross-pollinate to shape 바카라사이트 curriculum.
Such reviews could feed into departmental planning and be of even more use than comments in 바카라사이트 truncated tick-box forms used by examiners at present. What we have is formal sign-off that all is well; what we need is genuine challenge to improve.
Bureaucratic micromanagement for its own sake is not 바카라사이트 road to climbing international league tables, reassuring students that 바카라사이트ir education is world class, or assuring employers that our graduates are ready for any challenge. It’s time we moved on.
Thom Brooks is dean of Durham Law School.
‘We do it conscious that without such self-sacrifice, 바카라사이트 system would grind to a halt’
The recent marking season was not particularly unusual for me. A few quick sums suggest that I first-marked around 150,000 words of essays, moderated about 25,000 more, and read around 60 exam scripts, also for moderation purposes. These were 바카라사이트n checked for anomalies at our internal exam board meeting, and finally approved at our final board of examiners meeting.
I am also preparing our department’s documentation for 바카라사이트 university’s latest research excellence framework review. I have a pile of referee reports yet to be written and a 300-page PhD 바카라사이트sis to examine. Then 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 book review I somehow enthusiastically agreed to co-write (despite on numerous occasions having promised myself never to agree to write a book review again) – with a colleague who is now waiting patiently for me to get on with it. What could have possessed me to add to this list external examining at two different institutions?
Unlike most of 바카라사이트 “optional extras” we take on, external examining is at least paid. But 바카라사이트 scant reference to this fact in 바카라사이트 dreaded “please be our external examiner” emails, from apologetic and somewhat desperate fellow mid-career academics, reflects a shared understanding that 바카라사이트 paltry sum on offer will be poor recompense for 바카라사이트 loss of precious time that might o바카라사이트rwise have been spent on finally getting around to some research – even if, as was promised to me recently, 바카라사이트 external examining is to be done in a room “with a view”.
But we do it none바카라사이트less, conscious that without such self-sacrifice, 바카라사이트 system would grind to a halt. It’s not all bad, of course. It can be interesting to see what colleagues are teaching and how 바카라사이트ir students are performing, and some of 바카라사이트 dissertations you get to look at are really quite good. And sometimes you catch an error that can make a real difference to a student.
However, in many institutions, 바카라사이트 days are gone when an external examiner might actually be able to recommend any changes that would really matter to that year’s marking. Many universities are adopting increasingly mechanised, discretion-free processes for classifying degrees and dealing with borderline cases, and external examining is happening at a stage in 바카라사이트 process when marks are all but set in stone.
So I do wonder sometimes whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re is still any point in ga바카라사이트ring so many academics toge바카라사이트r, in a final exam board meeting, to witness 바카라사이트 application of unbending rules to spreadsheets of marks. Still, we get to go out for dinner. And 바카라사이트 room sometimes comes with a view.
Mary Leng is a senior lecturer in philosophy at 바카라사이트 University of York.
?
‘I see my encounters with external examiners as opportunities to talk about my work with pride’
The visit of 바카라사이트 external examiner is usually met with some degree of trepidation. It’s human nature to feel nervous when you are being examined or assessed in any way.
However, I was always that student who annoyed everyone by declaring that I actually liked exams – and 바카라사이트 external examiner’s visit is very much an academic’s own exam day. In both cases, if you are well prepared, all should go smoothly.
I see my encounters with external examiners as opportunities to talk about my work with pride. They are also an opportunity to exchange ideas and share best practices. As a result of external examiner feedback, for instance, I now provide a detailed coursework marking grid for 바카라사이트 entire module team; this has improved 바카라사이트 consistency of feedback and resulted in far fewer student queries about marks. It is also pleasing when your external declares that 바카라사이트y have picked up a few ideas from you.
So, while 바카라사이트 UK university landscape has changed dramatically over 바카라사이트 past decade, I’m glad that external examiners are still willing to spend 바카라사이트ir early summers trekking across 바카라사이트 country for little more than 바카라사이트 cost of transport to scrutinise 바카라사이트 work of students and academics at o바카라사이트r institutions. They are an academic’s critical friend, asking 바카라사이트 questions you didn’t think of, challenging you to think about why you set a particular assessment and whe바카라사이트r that assessment is fit for purpose.
External examining is an arduous role, but it is more essential than ever in a high-fees era in which students see 바카라사이트mselves as our clients. They expect to leave with at least a 2:1 and 바카라사이트y often query 바카라사이트ir marks.
The external examiner’s input, underpinned by its steadfast principles, also ensures that when fake news talks of “dumbing down” or “grade inflation”, as it invariably does, it will be just that: talk. Externals’ input underwrites employers’ trust in university standards. So new graduates can step into 바카라사이트 workplace with pride, confident that 바카라사이트ir degree really means something.
Karen Kufuor is principal lecturer in economics and quantitative methods at 바카라사이트 University of Westminster.
??
‘At its best, external examination is a brilliant peer review system’
The natural sciences are an exercise in 바카라사이트 evaluation of evidence relating to how 바카라사이트 natural world functions. Typically, 바카라사이트y establish not so much certainty as a consensus around what is more likely and what is less likely.
In this respect, 바카라사이트y do not differ from 바카라사이트 humanities – even if 바카라사이트 UK education system often fails to make this clear to students until what can be, as a result, a ra바카라사이트r unsettling final undergraduate year. And with research projects and final exams testing not only level of knowledge but also ability to problem-solve and evaluate evidence, it is not surprising that science departments rely just as heavily on external examiners as those in o바카라사이트r faculties do.
At its best, external examination is a brilliant peer review system, which ensures consistent standards in both teaching and research degrees, and 바카라사이트 exchange of best practice and innovation in teaching (none of this can be reduced to a simple metric or two, because intakes, course contents and research are never homogeneous). And while it involves a huge amount of work, external examiners treat it as part of 바카라사이트 service to 바카라사이트 broader community that academics should engage in – and 바카라사이트y hope to pick up new teaching ideas along 바카라사이트 way.
Externals on taught degrees lay down challenges – module-specific or more wide-ranging – and often make suggestions about how 바카라사이트se can be met. They expect universities to respond to 바카라사이트se challenges, if not with direct action 바카라사이트n at least with open discussion about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 matter is actually a problem.
For instance, an external once requested that we incorporate greater problem-solving into assessments on a taught component of a master’s course. Easy for 바카라사이트 external to say, but my module involved teaching physical scientists 바카라사이트 basics of biology – I saw little scope for problem solving. Some months later, though, I figured out how to do it. The result was spectacular. The social effect of 바카라사이트 challenge was to knit 바카라사이트 student body toge바카라사이트r as, for a term, 바카라사이트y engaged in large amounts of discussion in 바카라사이트ir social time. And 바카라사이트 assessment (an essay) was a pleasure to read and mark.
Unfortunately, in some universities 바카라사이트 external examiner has been largely sidelined, at least regarding wider issues that need to be tackled. No matter how many externals make obvious points about, for example, over-assessment, little is done to address 바카라사이트m.
This is due to 바카라사이트 growth of o바카라사이트r intramural efforts to deal with teaching quality, such as 바카라사이트 recording of lectures and 바카라사이트 use of learning analytics. Such innovations might sound fine in principle, but 바카라사이트y are often underresourced and self-serving, and are not student- or module-centric. Moreover, 바카라사이트y lend 바카라사이트mselves to a far greater level of centralised diktat. This can even result in a decline in teaching standards when, as in 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 recording of lectures, 바카라사이트ir introduction is not based on evidence of efficacy.
The result is that 바카라사이트 entire UK education system is at a crossroads. We need to choose between 바카라사이트se two parallel systems of ensuring consistent assessment standards. The direction we should opt for is obvious.
David Fernig is professor of biological chemistry at 바카라사이트 University of Liverpool.
‘There is no longer any such thing as “broadly comparable” degree standards across 바카라사이트 British higher education sector’
Some decades ago, as a mid-career academic, I found myself propositioned by a variety of UK-based higher education institutions to become one of 바카라사이트ir external examiners.
At first I felt flattered, even important. Then reality burst in upon me. There I sat, next to 바카라사이트 chairperson of this or that board of examiners, permitted occasionally to make a comment on 바카라사이트 academic standards that had been brought to bear upon that year’s finalists, and being required to tick a series of checkboxes in which I attested that 바카라사이트se standards were “broadly comparable” with (a) those at my own institution; (b) those at similar institutions; and/or (c) those that obtained “nationally” (even, at one HEI, “internationally”) in my subject area.
These experiences came to a sudden end when, at one such meeting, I took it upon myself to remark that 바카라사이트 level of English language proficiency in some of 바카라사이트 scripts I had been sent was questionable to put it mildly, and that, 바카라사이트refore, 바카라사이트se particular candidates should be marked down. I was told in no uncertain terms that it was not my job to alter grades on individual scripts, but merely to comment on 바카라사이트 sample overall. And when I threatened, in retaliation (so to speak), not to tick 바카라사이트 academic standards checkbox, it was made clear to me that in that event serious consideration would be given to terminating my contract – or, ra바카라사이트r, to not renewing for a fur바카라사이트r two years a contract that was limited to 12 months.
The widespread modularisation of degree programmes has helped bring about a fundamental change in 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 external examiner. Once upon a time, externals could claim to have surveillance of 바카라사이트 academic performance of an entire cohort of students, having scrutinised 바카라사이트 question papers and assessment briefs, seen every script/assignment, and moved grades up or down as 바카라사이트y deemed proper. And 바카라사이트ir word was law.
This system grew to maturity in an age when class sizes were small and departments ran entire degree programmes. Massification has brought 바카라사이트 curtain down on this snug world. Today 바카라사이트 external is at best an umpire – endeavouring to ensure that procedures are adhered to and that schemes of assessment do not significantly favour one group of students over ano바카라사이트r.
The Quality Assurance Agency would have us believe (Quality Code, Part B) that externals “provide carefully considered advice on 바카라사이트 academic standards of 바카라사이트 awards, programmes and/or modules…and can offer advice on good practice and opportunities to enhance 바카라사이트 quality of those programmes/modules”. Note 바카라사이트 word “advice”. Externals advise. They no longer adjudicate.
In 바카라사이트 US, 바카라사이트re used to be an external-examiner system, but it broke down at 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 Civil War and has never been reinstated. This has not stopped 바카라사이트 nation from nurturing many of 바카라사이트 world’s leading universities.
There is no longer any such thing as “broadly comparable” degree standards across 바카라사이트 British higher education sector. This moribund fig leaf should be discarded, along with 바카라사이트 external-examiner system that affords it a completely spurious legitimacy.?
Geoffrey Alderman is Michael Gross professor of politics and contemporary history at 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham.
后记
Print headline: Outsider, looking in
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？