Fly-sheets reprinted

Fly-sheets relating to the ballot on Grace 1 of 6 November 2024 (post-MAB exam review) and an amendment

In accordance with the Council’s Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, 2024, p. 116), the five fly‑sheets received for the ballot on Grace 1 of 6 November 2024 (post-MAB exam review) are reprinted below. Fly‑sheets are reprinted in the order in which they appeared in the ballot booklet, which was random. For the result of the ballot see p. 254.

Fly-sheet in favour of Grace 1 of 6 November 2024

We believe that the request for amendment of Grace 1 of 6 November1 to delete new Regulation 7 from the proposed Ordinance for the Approval of Class-Lists will be detrimental for the following reasons:

•Cambridge’s current regulatory system placed students at a unique disadvantage during the 2023 Marking and Assessment Boycott. Students were left in limbo – unable to continue their studies, proceed with visa applications, and missing job opportunities. In contrast, other universities implemented mitigation measures that allowed their students to progress, putting Cambridge students at a distinct disadvantage to their peers. Cambridge risks significant reputational damage as other Russell Group universities, including Oxford, have now implemented mitigation measures to protect their students.

•The maintenance of academic standards remains paramount, and we acknowledge that this measure will not benefit all students equally. Some will lack sufficient marks to take advantage of the mitigation or require a classification to progress. The proposed awarding of ‘declared to have deserved honours’ (DDH) is not intended to eliminate inequalities between groups of students but rather to mitigate the overall impact of disruption during the exam period on the student body.

•Failure to adopt this measure could place the University in breach of its conditions of registration with the Office for Students (OfS). The principle that University processes should be solely determined by the Regent House and remain immune to external regulation is arguable; as a publicly funded institution, the University is accountable not only to itself but also to external regulators.

•Opposing the proposed Regulation 7 solely because a similar measure was rejected by the Regent House in the ballot on Grace 2 of 15 March 2023 overlooks the significant work of the Task and Finish Group on this matter. Unlike the previous provision, current proposals explicitly uphold academic standards while prioritising the protection of student interests, while no longer relying solely on the General Board’s general responsibility under Statute A V 1 for setting and maintaining the University’s academic and educational policy.

We therefore urge you to vote in favour of the Grace in its original form.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Signed by the following sabbatical officers of the University of Cambridge Students’ Union and JCR and MCR Presidents:

[The names of these eight signatories were included in the ballot booklet but are not reproduced for general publication.]

Signed by the following registered students:

[The names of these eighteen signatories were included in the ballot booklet but are not reproduced for general publication.]

Fly-sheet supporting a vote to AMEND Grace 1 of 6 November 2024

The need for Regent House oversight of examination procedures

The exercise of the University’s power to award degrees is arguably our most important responsibility. Any possibility, or the appearance of any possibility, that degrees might be conferred before candidates have been properly assessed would represent a threat to the University’s academic integrity. Consequently, the Regent House has established detailed procedures by which a matriculated student may eventually qualify for admission to a degree, which it regulates by Ordinance. These Ordinances include regulations that govern the sitting, marking and classification of examinations and regulations that govern the meetings of Examiners at which class-lists are finally approved. In general, the regulations are written tightly, so that any departure from a procedure that might risk undermining the rigour of academic assessment requires the approval of the Regent House by Grace.

At Cambridge, the General Board has delegated responsibility for the academic and educational policy of the University, but that delegation is expressly made ‘subject to the powers of the Regent House.’1 No members of the General Board are elected by the Regent House. Consequently, the Board is accountable to the Regent House only through the Council.

The Regent House is the University’s governing body.2 It has a responsibility to defend the University’s procedural standards from internal or external pressures. It is the sole body in the University with the independence and academic authority to do so.3 It should be cautious of delegating to a central administrative committee general powers to make exceptions to fundamental procedures designed to assure the integrity of the degree-awarding process.

The undersigned believe that the Regent House would be neglecting its duty of academic oversight if it were to grant the General Board a power to allow students to graduate before their examinations have been classified. We encourage members of the Regent House to vote for the status quo by supporting the amendment to the Grace.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet supporting a vote to AMEND Grace 1 of 6 November 2024

The need to uphold the University’s standards against external pressure from the Office for Students

We commend the effort of the Task and Finish Group to clarify the University’s examination regulations. The Group’s recommendations improve on the present regulations in several ways, in particular by setting out clearly and comprehensively the procedures to be followed when Examiners fail to attend a meeting constituted for the approval of class-lists. However, we believe that it would be a mistake to grant the General Board the power to allow candidates for admission to degrees to graduate before sufficient marks are available to classify their examinations in the usual way. The introduction of such a practice would diminish the academic credibility of the University and the academic credibility of its degrees.

The Council appears to have come under pressure from the Office for Students (the OfS, the regulator of higher education in England) to introduce the proposed power, following the Acting Vice-Chancellor’s decision to offer the regulator a review of the University’s examination regulations, after the Regent House voted to uphold the University’s usual standards during the 2023 Marking and Assessment Boycott of the UCU.1 Although the OfS is obliged to act in the interest of students, in this case we believe it is attempting to defend them as consumers at the expense of standards.

The Council claims it may be necessary for the University to allow its students to graduate before all their exams have been marked in order to avoid breaching its conditions of registration with the OfS. However, it has not explained why that is so, even in response to questions put in the Discussion of the Report on the review of the University’s examination regulations.2

The OfS is a struggling regulator,3 which has been subjected to heavy parliamentary criticism. It has been reproached by the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Select Committee for failing to anticipate the present financial crisis in higher education.4 The Committee’s report Must do better: the Office for Students and the looming crisis facing higher education noted that

The OfS’ regulatory framework has become increasingly prescriptive over time. It is too willing to direct higher education providers’ operations and activities, showing little regard to the need to protect institutional autonomy.

The report also criticised the OfS’s approach to quality and standards, following the decision of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) to withdraw from the assessment of universities in England.5 The Committee considered that the OfS had ‘little regard to the expertise and impartiality’ of the QAA, that it ‘apparently views its own convenience and control as more important than preserving independent oversight of quality and standards’ and that ‘the OfS does not have the confidence of the sector in providing an impartial assessment of quality and standards’.

The undersigned believe it is necessary to establish clearly the principle that the academic and procedural standards of the University of Cambridge, as determined by the Regent House, are not susceptible to dilution by an external regulator. The University should hold its nerve. The OfS would discredit itself were it to challenge the University of Cambridge for refusing to dilute its standards. We encourage members of the Regent House to vote in support of the amended form of the Grace.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet supporting a vote to AMEND Grace 1 of 6 November 2024

The effects of industrial action on students should be mitigated, but not at the expense of the integrity of the University’s examination standards

The proposal that students should be allowed to graduate before all their examinations have been marked is equivalent to a temporary measure proposed by the Council in 2023 to mitigate the effects of the UCU Marking and Assessment Boycott. The Regent House rejected that proposal when it voted to amend Grace 2 of 15 March 2023.1 We encourage members of the Regent House to read the fly-sheets from the 2023 ballot, which contain many arguments relevant to the present proposal and which were reprinted in Reporter No. 6700.2

The University has established a reputation over many decades for exceptional academic standards in education, learning, and research. It has done so partly because it maintains the highest institutional standards and protects them through academic self-government. We accept that the University has a responsibility to respond to industrial action to minimise the disadvantage to its students. However, it must do so in a way that maintains its academic integrity. Procedures that are considered generally necessary to assure standards should not be diluted. We must avoid endorsing the notion that a degree is a commodity to be purchased, rather than a qualification conferred by the University in recognition of academic achievement. That risks reputational damage, which will be difficult to reverse.

In addition to concerns about standards there are concerns about fairness. The adoption of the Council’s proposal will mean that certain students are particularly and unfairly affected when there is disruption to marking. Allowing students with sufficient marks to demonstrate the minimum level of attainment required for a degree but without sufficient marks for their exams to be classified to graduate ahead of their cohort has the potential to humiliate those left behind. These are likely to be the students who struggled during the academic year, perhaps due to circumstances beyond their control. In any event, the inclusion of candidates with sufficient marks for a degree but without sufficient marks for a classification in a list of candidates who are ‘Declared to have deserved honours’ is unlikely to do much to reduce delays to their progression into employment or further study, which in most cases will depend on the results of properly classified examinations.

It is regrettable that industrial action taken by University staff primarily affects students. Attempts to mitigate the consequences may be justified, but they must not compromise the University’s academic integrity. Crossing this line will erode the trust placed in the University by its students, by its alumni, and by society generally. Even from a commercial perspective – which we do not endorse – the amendment of the Grace should be supported; by lowering our standards we will ultimately devalue our degrees.

We encourage the Regent House to reaffirm the position it took in the ballot on Grace 2 of 15 March 2023, by supporting the amended form of this Grace.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet supporting a vote to AMEND Grace 1 of 6 November 2024

The Office for Students is legally prohibited from interfering in academic assessment

A fly-sheet circulated in support of a vote for the Grace in its original form states that:

Failure to adopt this measure could place the University in breach of its conditions of registration with the Office for Students (OfS). The principle that University processes should be solely determined by the Regent House and remain immune to external regulation is arguable; as a publicly funded institution, the University is accountable not only to itself but also to external regulators.

While it is true that the University must comply with the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (HERA), which subjects it to regulation by the Office for Students, the Act itself enshrines protections for the institutional autonomy of higher education providers. Section 2 of the HERA explicitly restricts the Office for Students (OfS) from interfering in assessment procedures:1

In performing its functions, the OfS must have regard to the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers.

The Act defines ‘the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers’ to include the following:2

the freedom of English higher education providers to determine the content of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised and assessed.

The assertion that a vote for the status quo risks a breach of the University’s conditions of registration with the OfS overlooks these statutory safeguards. Accordingly, we encourage members of the Regent House to vote in support of the Grace in its amended form.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House: