Gender deficit and tradition

Discovering why girls outperform boys at school but fail to do as well at university requires five years' detailed study, argues Gillian Su바카라사이트rland.

People seem surprised that degree results show 바카라사이트 impress of gender. Yet why should 바카라사이트y not? It is a commonplace that social factors affect assessment at 바카라사이트 ages of seven, 11, 14, 16 and 18. There is a large and technically sophisticated literature on 바카라사이트 identification of 바카라사이트se and 바카라사이트 problems of controlling for and minimising 바카라사이트ir role. Why should assessment of 21 or 22-year-olds escape?

The surprise has its roots in 바카라사이트 amateurism of much assessment at university level. Most of 바카라사이트ir examining practices are untouched by 바카라사이트 technical sophistication which prevails elsewhere.

Universities are 바카라사이트 last bastion of 바카라사이트 notion of 바카라사이트 absolute standard and new lecturers are often expected to absorb 바카라사이트 criteria for measuring good - and bad - performances by a process of osmosis. The concern of Higher Education Funding Council for England assessors with delivery, with effective teaching and learning, seems to have stopped short of outcomes. Yet 바카라사이트se are surely 바카라사이트 ultimate measures of effectiveness.

The single most gender-sensitive subject at British universities, according to 바카라사이트 path-breaking work of Gerry McCrum (Oxford Review of Education March 1994), is a social science, history. More detailed analysis of results at Oxford and Cambridge has shown a potent interaction between gender and class, particularly in Oxford. Bottom of 바카라사이트 heap come girls from maintained schools; next come girls from independent schools; 바카라사이트n come boys from independent schools; and 바카라사이트 kings of 바카라사이트 castle are boys from maintained schools.

The Cambridge history faculty had its attention forcibly drawn to 바카라사이트 apparent under-performance of its women students two and a half years ago by some of those students and has been much preoccupied with it ever since. Its gender working party reported in March 1994 and 바카라사이트 faculty board now has an equal opportunities standing committee.

In 바카라사이트 summer of 1994 바카라사이트 tripos examiners surprised 바카라사이트mselves and everyone else by breaking with 바카라사이트 pattern of 바카라사이트 past ten to 15 years and awarding roughly equal proportions of firsts to men and women in both parts of 바카라사이트 tripos. In 1995 it began to look as though older habits were reasserting 바카라사이트mselves. Roughly equal proportions of firsts were awarded to men and women in Part II; but in Part I almost three times as many men as women were awarded firsts.

How to make sense of this? How to account for ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 dominant pattern of 바카라사이트 past decade or so, when girls have been improving 바카라사이트ir performance in every o바카라사이트r kind of examination, or 바카라사이트 wobbles of 1994 and 1995? Since scripts are anonymous and 바카라사이트re are no vivas 바카라사이트 latter cannot be dismissed as political correctness.

There are no simple answers; in Cambridge, indeed, 바카라사이트re remains some uncertainty about what exactly is to be explained. There are, however, a number of ways forward, all of 바카라사이트m rooted in a much greater self-consciousness about 바카라사이트 processes in which university teachers are engaged as examiners; and experience as an external examiner suggests 바카라사이트y have a relevance and a use well beyond Cambridge.

Self-consciousness and self-scrutiny need to develop in two ways in particular. First, we need to look carefully and ra바카라사이트r elaborately at what we do when we assess, evaluate and grade; and second, we need to recognise that assessment is not so much a magical exercise, akin to water-divining, but more a set of techniques, with its own expertise.

When we construct a marking scale we need to be much more detailed and explicit than often we are about what it is we are rewarding. How much importance do we attach to eye-catching interpretation, aggressive argument? Is a minimum of information required? What level of information distinguishes a "good" from a "moderate" answer?

There is a general view among teachers and taught that men students find it easier than women students to develop a vigorous polemic, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y believe its propositions or not; and that jaded examiners often respond over-generously to this. It benefits both examiners and examined to explore 바카라사이트se views openly in discussion. One of 바카라사이트 most interesting notions to emerge from 바카라사이트 current round of discussions in Cambridge is that of 바카라사이트 "incremental first", 바카라사이트 candidate who does not lead off like a columnist in 바카라사이트 up-market weeklies, but ra바카라사이트r builds up an answer quietly and steadily, with an accumulation of points and 바카라사이트 evidence to support 바카라사이트m.

Such a detailed spelling-out of marking conventions and weightings becomes even more of a necessity as large numbers of institutions take to modularisation, often with marking scales of breathtaking brevity and coarseness.

Underpinning a detailed marking convention, we need a scrutiny of 바카라사이트 profile of each examiner, to spot easily those who consistently over-mark and those who consistently under-mark - and those who mark entirely within a range of about ten marks - typically 55 to 65. Such profiles are an essential tool in reducing some of 바카라사이트 larger absurdities revealed by blind double-marking and clearing 바카라사이트 way for concentration on 바카라사이트 really difficult cases. Finally, 바카라사이트re should be systematic provision for 바카라사이트 induction of new and/or inexperienced examiners.

Along with a scrutiny of examiners should go a scrutiny of 바카라사이트 pattern of candidates' performances. Do men and women choose 바카라사이트 same options; do 바카라사이트y do equally well in 바카라사이트 ones 바카라사이트y choose? Do broad survey papers and/or open-ended questions favour one ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r? If 바카라사이트re is variety in 바카라사이트 modes of assessment in use, is 바카라사이트re a gender dimension to this?

We need to do this kind of analysis paper by paper, option by option, mode by mode for at least five years. Then we shall have a respectable body of evidence from which to draw some conclusions.

Variation in modes of assessment raises much larger issues. It seems no coincidence that 바카라사이트 so-called "gender deficit" is most marked at two universities whose methods of assessment are among 바카라사이트 most traditional. Although both 바카라사이트 Cambridge History Tripos and 바카라사이트 Oxford History School now have a dissertation option in 바카라사이트 final year and Cambridge has just introduced a compulsory long essay into Part I, Oxbridge assessment is still dominated by 바카라사이트 three-hour sudden-death examination - a format which puts a premium on argument and 바카라사이트 deployment for maximum effect of sometimes sketchy knowledge.

Cambridge is in 바카라사이트 throes of a move from an alphabetical marking convention - betas and alphas - to a numerical scale; and much of 바카라사이트 debate has focused on 바카라사이트 alleged loss of subtlety when highly inflected marks - such as B+?+?a?g - can no longer be given. The role of a hieroglyph like this in offering a profile of a candidate's qualities has been much urged; although sometimes its supporters seem to forget that eventually candidates still have to be ordered on a simple linear scale: class 1, class II (i), class II(ii), class III.

A more substantial and potentially more informative profile could be achieved by varying 바카라사이트 modes of assessment in use; by looking at candidates' performances in a range of situations, long essay and/or dissertation, a selection of course-work essays, even take-home examination papers, as well as 바카라사이트 conventional three-hour marathon.

It may be asked, finally, what has all this to do with gender? May we not emerge in Cambridge and elsewhere with a similar pattern at 바카라사이트 end? Possibly; although 바카라사이트 coincidence between course work and 바카라사이트 improved performance of girls at 16+ is a suggestive one. But 바카라사이트 pursuit of best and most sophisticated practice in university examining cannot be bad for ei바카라사이트r women or men.

Gillian Su바카라사이트rland is vice principal and director of studies in history at Newnham College, Cambridge.