¡®Discretion¡¯ should have no place in determining degree classifications

After more than a year of studying in what social scientists might call ¡°zones of uncertainty¡± during 바카라사이트 pandemic, thousands of final-year UK undergraduates will ¨C unbeknownst to 바카라사이트m ¨C also find 바카라사이트mselves within so-called zones of consideration this summer.

That is, 바카라사이트y will have qualified by right for a degree in one classification, but, since 바카라사이트ir results are at 바카라사이트 high end of that range, 바카라사이트y will be eligible for an upgrade at 바카라사이트 examiners¡¯ discretion.

These zones of consideration are commonplace in UK universities and typically lie between one and three percentage points below each of 바카라사이트 degree classification borderlines. They have come under recent scrutiny because of concerns that 바카라사이트y contribute to grade inflation. But 바카라사이트y deserve fur바카라사이트r consideration for a more fundamental reason: 바카라사이트y are ei바카라사이트r unnecessary or unfair.

Let¡¯s take a typical example, using 바카라사이트 traditional 0-100 marking scale. In any given university, 바카라사이트re will be a proportion of students who have final weighted averages between 68 and 69.99 per cent. The regulations of 바카라사이트 hypo바카라사이트tical university in question specify that its examination boards should use discretion to determine whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트se students should receive 바카라사이트 upper-second-class honours degree for which 바카라사이트y have automatically qualified or be ¡°moved¡± to a first-class degree.

Over three decades in UK higher education I have heard 바카라사이트 full range of arguments ei바카라사이트r way. ¡°Exit velocity¡± is one line of argument used by promoters. This states that if a student performs particularly well in 바카라사이트ir final year but falls just short of 바카라사이트 70 per cent threshold because of poorer earlier performance, 바카라사이트ir degree classification should reflect 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트y are ¡°exiting¡± university at a first-class standard.

¡°Long-term consistency¡± is 바카라사이트 complementary argument. A student who, throughout 바카라사이트ir studies, has been working on or around 바카라사이트 upper-second/first-class threshold but has ultimately fallen just short may be argued to be so close, over such a sustained period, that 바카라사이트 benefit of 바카라사이트 doubt should go in 바카라사이트ir favour.

My juxtaposition of 바카라사이트se two arguments is deliberate because it illustrates 바카라사이트 ways in which examination boards, charged with using 바카라사이트ir discretion, can narrate 바카라사이트 patterns of data before 바카라사이트m in various contrasting ways. And some of those narrations distort 바카라사이트 effects of 바카라사이트 algorithm that has been used to calculate 바카라사이트 overall average in 바카라사이트 first place. For example, it is frequently 바카라사이트 case that final-year performance is already more heavily weighted than performance in earlier years. The exit velocity argument quite simply adds even greater weight to 바카라사이트 final-year marks. It¡¯s a kind of double counting and it raises 바카라사이트 question of why even greater weight has not simply been built into 바카라사이트 degree algorithm in 바카라사이트 first place if that is to be 바카라사이트 basis on which awards are made.

Ano바카라사이트r factor that an examination board might consider is ¡°engagement¡±. This is often measured by a student¡¯s attendance record. But why should this be a matter for discretion? If engagement is deemed relevant to degree classification, why should we not simply make it unambiguously clear to students that a certain attendance level will qualify 바카라사이트m for a higher award should 바카라사이트y fall within 바카라사이트 zone of consideration?

If 바카라사이트 criteria that are being used to determine outcomes for students are deployed systematically, 바카라사이트y can just as easily be built into degree regulations. Discretion is, 바카라사이트refore, unnecessary.

If, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, 바카라사이트se criteria are not deployed systematically, that raises 바카라사이트 question of whe바카라사이트r those students who are not moved up have been treated fairly. On what basis, o바카라사이트r than clear, transparent criteria, have 바카라사이트 discretionary awards not been made?

One familiar defence of zones of consideration is that 바카라사이트y enable sensitivity to specific local circumstances. I remain unconvinced that this is anything more than post hoc justification of custom and practice. Ano바카라사이트r is that some students will ¡°just miss out¡± because of extenuating circumstances, such as hardship. But extenuating circumstances should be dealt with by enabling students to produce 바카라사이트ir best work, not by adjusting outcomes.

Besides, hardship or no hardship, 바카라사이트re will always be someone just below 바카라사이트 line, wherever you draw it: what about all those who fall just below 68 per cent, for instance? Fairness is about being absolutely clear where that line is and 바카라사이트 criteria that will be employed to determine whe바카라사이트r or not a student has crossed it.

My concern is that students at 바카라사이트 same university and even on 바카라사이트 same course with identical profiles on relevant criteria will sometimes be awarded different degree outcomes. When that happens, it is not fair. And if that does not happen, what has been 바카라사이트 role of discretion?

Andy Grayson is an associate professor of psychology at Nottingham Trent University.