Memorandum 6
Submission from Richard Royle[8]
1. SUMMARY
The essence of my evidence is that:
— The external examiner system is a sham.
— There should be some form of external
assessment which takes account of subject specialism.
2. ABOUT MYSELF
— I am a senior lecturer in law at the
Lancashire Law School, University of Central Lancashire.—
I have been lecturing in law, specialising in Land Law and the
law of Equity and Trusts, for over 15 years.
— I have also taught at Liverpool John
Moores University, the University of Derby, and the University
of Wolverhampton.
— I have been involved in many course and
module validations, and I have been an external examiner.
3. EVIDENCE
3.1 In the time I have been teaching I have
witnessed a remarkable decline in academic standards. At many
institutions, grades have been inflated, plagiarism is often ignored,
and difficult areas of the syllabus are either omitted in their
entirety or simply not examined. I also have grave doubts concerning
the subject knowledge of some academics who purport to teach the
more complex and technical subject areas.
3.2 I think that I should emphasise at the outset
that my criticisms do not apply to every academic institution,
but such practices do appear to be rife, especially in the newer
universities. Fortunately, my own institution has endeavoured
to maintain standards.
3.3 The major reason for the decline in
standards is undoubtedly the desire to improve performance figures,
reduce retention rates, and improve performance in the league
tables. This may be seen as similar to the situation which is
faced by many schools, but there is one crucial difference: the
absence of external scrutiny makes it far too easy for universities
to "cook the books". At least schools have to prepare
pupils for an external examination: universities are free to set
their own examinations and prepare students accordingly.
3.4 There is a conspiracy of silence amongst
academics. Nobody wishes to be subject to external scrutiny.
3.5 When I first began teaching, the HEFCE
used to inspect courses, an inspection which included both course
documentation and teaching on those courses. The assessment was
performed by subject specialists. This is never the case today.
Each department or faculty assesses the "quality" of
its own course, but this assessment is usually merely an examination
of the course documentation. There is no genuine external scrutiny.
This self- regulation is remarkably similar to that performed
by the Financial Services Authority, and we are all now aware
of the ineffectiveness of this type of "regulation".
3.6 In Law, my own subject area, the Law
Society and Bar Council also used to take an active role in the
scrutiny of undergraduate course delivery, but now those organisations
restrict themselves to appearing upon validation boards etc. Only
the course documentation is examined.
3.7 The resulting system is one where the
documentation for most courses is excellent, but unfortunately
practice does not always match the theory which is propounded
in the course documentation.
3.8 It is not difficult to understand how
we have arrived at this state of affairs. Academics are under
pressure to improve results, so many make the course as easy as
possible for the students and mark student work at the lowest
possible standard. There is no external scrutiny, so nobody will
know and everybody is happy. The institution is happy because
grades improve; the students are happy because they are receiving
high marks; and the staff are happy because they receive praise
for raising standards!
3.9 External scrutiny is supposed to be
provided by the external examiner system, a procedure which is
too often abused. External examiners are often friends of the
module leaders and are frequently asked to scrutinise subject
areas with which they are unfamiliar. They are not encouraged
to pass adverse comments.
3.10 Despite my comments above, I have experienced
some excellent external examiners and I have always taken their
advice. I have always altered marks and in accordance with comments
made by the external examiner. However, some institutions have
a policy of never altering their marks regardless of what the
external examiner says. In other words the external examiner is
merely there to satisfy the procedural requirements. He may pass
comment, but he is impotent, and cannot make any difference in
practice. Of course, his comments will be "taken on board"
before being ignored.
3.11 I have just finished my period of office
as an external examiner at one University. Within my jurisdiction
were the subject areas of Land Law and Equity and Trusts. Throughout
my four-year period I had repeatedly passed comment about the
standard of the work which was being awarded first class marks,
but there was, nevertheless, a steady decline throughout my period
of office. I was as gentle as possible with my comments because
the role of external examiner is supposed to be that of "critical
friend" and I did not want to alienate the teaching staff.
3.12 I was concerned not only with the standard
of marking, but also with the content of the modules, especially
the Equity and Trusts module. None of the more modern and difficult
areas (tracing, recipient and accessory liability and many areas
of constitution) were taught at all. Even the essential area of
trustees' powers and duties was not taught. I cannot recall one
student at any time throughout my four-year period of office even
referring to the Trustee Act 2000. Nothing was done in response
to these comments, even though I think that the course was revalidated
last year. I have been assured that the matter will be reviewed
this year, but, as my period of office has ended, I will never
know if it is. I did comment upon last year's Equity examination
paper, noting that it avoided any modern areas of law, and could
have been adequately answered by a student in 1975! Needless to
say, my comments were unacknowledged.
3.13 Last year I was totally astonished
at the poor quality of the answers which were awarded first class
marks in the examinations in both Land Law and Equity. Students
were awarded a first class mark for work which would be on the
borderline of third class and failure at my own institution. The
scripts were well written (in terms of English), but demonstrated
only a poor grasp of the subject areas.
3.14 I will try not to go into too much
technical detail, but some examples are required. On the Equity
paper every year there is a question on secret trusts (which in
itself is a rather obscure area, of far less relevance to than
many of the omitted areas). This area has been subjected to a
great deal of academic commentary and there have been numerous
journal articles written upon the subject. Previously, I mentioned
that the module leader had awarded first class marks to a student
who had not even referred to any of these commentaries. Nothing
was done or said about my comments. Last year the same thing happened
and a number of students were awarded first class marks for merely
describing the requirements for secret trusts. I passed the same
comments, but, once again, they were ignored. I was astonished
that such superficial answers could be awarded a First Class mark.
3.15 Far worse was the marking of a question
on constructive trusts of land. Upper Second or First Class marks
were awarded to students who did not even demonstrate knowledge
of the requirements for a constructive trust (there was no mention
of common intention) and some students described a resulting trust
rather than a constructive trust. These answers would amount to
borderline failures at my institution.
3.16 On the Land Law paper, there was a
question on the merits of the land registration system. It does
not take an expert in land law to realise that any good answer
of this question required some knowledge of unregistered land,
but students were awarded very high marks, including one First
Class, for writing an essay describing the merits of the Land
Registration Act 2002. None of the students mentioned unregistered
land at all, even though the question effectively called for a
comparison of the two systems. When I mentioned this, one member
of staff at the institution said that "we don't do unregistered
land". I found this to be truly astonishing. If they did
not want the students to talk about unregistered land, why ask
a question concerning it? If they chose not to teach registered
land either, would a good attempt at "What I did on my holidays"
merit a First Class mark in Land Law? Candidates are supposed
to answer the question which has been set, not the question which
the module leader wishes he had asked, if only he had drafted
the question properly.
3.17 I enclose a copy of the letter which
I wrote to the programme co-ordinator. I did not receive a reply
until after the assessment board. I could send many more examples.
3.18 At the assessment board it was made
clear to me that the marks would not be changed and that my comments
were unwelcome. I thought that this reaction was truly astonishing.
I have always been prepared to change my marks if the external
examiner disagrees with me, and such disagreements have only ever
amounted to a couple of percentage points. Here, the difference
in opinion is three whole grades (or approximately 30%—the
difference between a bare pass and a comfortable first class mark).
I could understand it if there was a compromise, leading to some
reduction in the mark, but there was none, not even a token reduction.
3.19 I do realise that my own marking might
be seen as a little on the frugal side and I realise that there
can be differing interpretations, but a difference between First
Class and borderline failure should never occur.
3.20 In response I received the usual platitudes
about taking the comments of the external examiners very seriously
(but obviously not seriously enough to act upon). At no stage
did anybody even attempt to address my comments regarding poor
knowledge of the subject matter. The reasons for ignoring my comments
appear to change as time passes. At the assessment board I was
told that members staff mark "according to the cohort"—I
am not too sure what this means in this context. I assume that
it means that you decide how many first class marks you intend
to award and mark accordingly—regardless of how the questions
are answered. I was also told that the Land Law and Equity marks
were not "out of kilter" with the other marks for this
group of students. However, at most institutions they would be
"out of kilter"! Land Law and Equity and Trusts are
traditionally known as the most difficult areas for students to
grasp, and marks are often lower in these subjects. If student
performance on a particular paper is so irrelevant, why bother
to require students to sit it in the first place? And why have
an external examiner if his remarks are totally ignored?
3.21 When I received the course leader's
comments (I can provide a copy of his letter if required), he
said that the external examiner is merely "part of the team",
and obviously not a very important part. I find this to be truly
astonishing. I am a specialist in my subject but my opinion counts
for nothing against the module leaders, supported by people who
have no knowledge of the subject areas in question. Presumably
if a student studying physics at the institution concerned writes
an excellent essay about King Lear they should be given a First
Class Degree in Physics!
3.22 I do not find it easy to write this
statement about colleagues, and I do in one sense think that I
have breached the trust of the people concerned. However, I think
that to keep quiet would damage my professional integrity. It
is truly shameful of our system of university education that the
same piece of work could be awarded a First Class (or even an
Upper Second) mark at one institution and be a borderline failure
at another. Put another way, law students at my own institution
are being disadvantaged because they have to learn the law in
order to achieve high marks, whereas students at other institutions
receive first class marks for inferior pieces of work. My students
and potential employers deserve better.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
— Degree classifications should be comparable
between institutions.— External scrutiny is essential, both
at the validation stage and afterwards—self regulation leads
to abuse.
— Teaching should be examined by subject
specialists.
— The external examiner system should be
replaced.
— It should be considered whether there
should be some assessments which are set (and perhaps even marked)
externally—this could be difficult in some of the more obscure
subjects, but would be feasible for the more popular courses.
December 2008
8 University of Central Lancashire. Back
| 
