Yesterday I discussed this year’s graduation results of Merton College, Oxford. Now I would like to look back at some historical figures and compare the results from another college (name witheld) in 1963 with those achieved this year:
1963
1st class: 7
2nd class 57 (2nds were not formally split into 2.1 and 2.2 until 1986
3rd class. 37
4th class. 6
In 1970, 4ths disappeared, and 3rds are now on life support.
2014
1st class: 33
2nd class: 71
3rd class: 3
It is probably more difficult to get into Oxbridge now, compared with 1963, and the advent of girls into men’s colleges must have improved performance and eliminated some of the playboys-with-connections who dwelt in the hallowed halls at one time. But a rise of 470% in the number of 1st Class Honours degrees compared with 50 years ago? A 1st used to be near unattainable, reserved for eggheads destined to be dons or Treasury mandarins. A 2.1 used to be a big deal. Even 3rds got you job interviews with good companies.
What do these figures suggest? Either the University has lowered the standards in recent years, or, if the undergraduates are so much smarter than their predecessors, shouldn’t the University be putting the standards up? Is not the objective to encourage even greater achievement?
This is a matter of importance, because Oxford is an international institution, devoted to excellence. If the trend is towards more generosity in marking, how can an employer be confident in what he’s getting or distinguish a brilliant brain from a slightly-less-brilliant one (something the Dons are supposed to do). Granting too many top degrees is like printing too much money – it debases the currency. Reputations, hard won over centuries, can be lost and employers can cease to believe. I sincerely hope this doesn’t happen.
The world desperately needs excellence and high achievement. The explanation allegedly given by Harvard for grade inflation (“If you are smart enough to get to Harvard you are smart enough to graduate summa cum laude”) is shocking. Let us hope that Oxford has not been tempted (now that government subventions have been cut and students are paying) to listen to siren voices begging for good grades for mercenary reasons having nothing to do with education!
“If you are smart enough to get to Harvard you are smart enough to graduate summa cum laude,” as you say, is a “shocking” view. It is also intellectual arrogance on parade.
Dante’s deepest circle of Hell punished the greatest sin of all: intellectual arrogance: I’m better than God, the Devil said. Harvard folk considering themselves as the smartest because they were even admitted and will therefore emerge summa-level smart after four years? Is there a infernal circle for the sin of smugness?
There is exactly the same problem earlier on in the English educational system with GCSE and A level grades getting higher and higher every year to the extent that most people who apply to the top universities have straight As. I gather that the Oxbridge colleges still interview prospective students, but most other universities have to rely on the prospective grades and a personal statement.
There is of course a political dimension to it in that every summer politicians hail the results as evidence that the schools are getting better. I don’t know if politics comes into the degree results. as well. Perhaps Oxford wants to show what a brilliant university it is to attract more government funding and get more research grants etc. How do you compare an Oxford degree to one from Cambridge, Bristol, Leeds, or the University of Hertfordshire, let alone Harvard, Yale, Heidelberg, Melbourne or Beijing?