Source: Getty

Professional standards: legal scholars resisted efforts to ¡®restandardise¡¯ marks in ¡®core subjects¡¯ including EU law

Plans by a university law school to ¡°normalise¡± exam marks - which would have helped more students to gain a better degree classification - sparked a backlash from staff, Times Higher Education has learned.

Minutes of a meeting in the University of Surrey¡¯s Faculty of Business, Economics and Law obtained by Times Higher Education show how several academics spoke out against plans to ¡°restandardise¡± exam papers, claiming that it would compromise the law school¡¯s academic integrity.

The leaked documents show that the plans were debated in July 2011 at a meeting of the board of examiners for Surrey¡¯s LLB Law course.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

According to the minutes, concerns were raised that exam marks for some modules had been altered. It emerged that the results had been ¡°normalised¡± to test a new process that gave extra credit to students on modules that traditionally produced lower exam marks.

The faculty¡¯s associate dean, Andrew Lockwood, who is also Forte professor of management at Surrey, told the meeting that the marks had been changed, pending the board¡¯s approval, as ¡°the Law School [is] out of line with [other] good institutions¡± in awarding ¡°good degrees¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

He added that marks awarded in five of the modules taught by the law school ¡°were not consistent with others¡±, which implied that ¡°some students [were] being disadvantaged¡±. Professor Lockwood argued that the ¡°reclassifying¡± of marks would bring these modules into line.

However, it was noted that the change would mean the one-in-five failure rate for the EU Law module would fall to one in 12 students.

According to the minutes, one academic said that EU Law was a ¡°core subject¡± and that ¡°statistical manipulation of marks is not customary or accepted in relation to a law degree¡±.

She added: ¡°[Altered] results are a misrepresentation to the professional bodies and it is inappropriate for the board to make this decision.¡±

Another academic said that she ¡°recognised the pressure to normalise marks in light of the grade inflation throughout the country¡± but was apprehensive about a clear fail being raised to a pass ¡°as the student has not met the criteria¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

A third said that she ¡°strongly objected to marks being altered without consultation¡± and that it was ¡°not unusual for subjects to differ (in pass rates)¡±.

However, one of their colleagues complained that Surrey students would score lower degrees than their peers at other universities because the ¡°majority of law schools have more flexible regulations for awarding students¡±.

David Allen, the faculty¡¯s dean and professor of management, insisted that the ¡°normalisation of marks is a standard process and does not involve inflating or massaging marks¡±, the minutes state.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The proposals to ¡°normalise¡± the modules were defeated by 11 votes to 6 in a secret ballot and the original unaltered marks carried forward.

A spokesman for the University of Surrey said the discussions over two particular modules were to ¡°take account of anomalies, where the pattern of achievement differed significantly from others¡±.

¡°Moderation and discussion about marking is normal practice in academic institutions,¡± he said. ¡°There is absolutely no question of any attempt to reduce standards.¡±

He added that the university has a rigorous process for assessment, which used external examiners in support of the board of examiners.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

jack.grove@tsleducation.com.