Update on the Review of External Examining

Greg Wade, Policy Adviser,

UniversitiesUK

The Review of External Examining

• National Consultation – responses analysed (61% response rate)

• Final meeting of the Expert and Review Groups held• Drafting final report• Fully endorsed by the GuildHE Executive and

UniversitiesUK UK Board• Dissemination to the sector• Wider circulation• Integration into development of the Academic

Infrastructure

Principles/Question 1Question 2 – Minimum Expectations

• Yes but bureaucracy/institutional autonomy• Principle 3 – how, to whom, consistency = effectiveness ? • The most recommended additions - links to AI, external examiners

responsible to the institution that appoints them, need to avoid increasing costs.

YES 82 % UNCERTAIN 16 % NO 2 %

YES 76 % UNCERTAIN 23 % NO 1 %

• Strong support for the approach and the need for a single reference point• Support for a more explicit statement of what is mandatory/optional• A need to be explicit about application to externals drawn from industry and

the professions• Support for distinction between judgement and advice (not all liked the terms)

relating judgement to standards and advice to QE

Question 3 – Selection ProcessesQuestion 4 - Selection Criteria

• Very strong support for both propositions • Reservations - extent to which this was a significant change – and additional

burden – compared with existing practice• Concerns about whether individual details would be disclosed

YES 81 % UNCERTAIN 16 % NO 3 %

YES 72 % UNCERTAIN 15 % NO 13 %

• Strong but qualified support• Concerns – flexibility, burden, impact on recruitment• Not supported - too generic, should be left to individual institutions, Section 4

sufficient.

Question 5 - Induction/Common TemplateQuestion 6 - Recognition

• Reflects current institutional practice; and value of training/development • Controlled by the institution• Desirability, or the value of, some form of mentoring arrangement (for first

time externals)• Role for home institution

YES 66 % UNCERTAIN 18 % NO 16 %

YES 62 % UNCERTAIN 27 % NO 12 %

• Some already do this/natural expectation• Including in appraisal and performance processes• Support qualified - decision was up to the institution, one factor amongst

many and senior positions = promotion limited• Uncertain or disagreed - an institutional decision with some strongly opposing

any national comment or guidance

Question 7 – National Report TemplateQuestion 8 – Student Section

• Agreement heavily qualified and mainly “ in principle”.• Two-thirds - a minimum “core”• Linked to the minimum expectations• Uncertain or opposed, over half were willing to consider a minimum set of

questions or broad guidelines

YES 58 % UNCERTAIN 18 % NO 24 %

YES 23 % UNCERTAIN 28 % NO 49 %

• Concerns - reinvention of failed TQI website, adds to workload to no good effect, as many institutions already shared the whole report not needed

• Whole report would need to be made available under FOI• More important alternative section confidential comments

Question 9 - Share with Student Reps Question 10 – Publishing Names

• Already did this as a matter of good practice• Confidential information should be removed• Some commented - available to all students on the relevant programme,

within context

YES 78 % UNCERTAIN 11 % NO 11 %

YES 38 % UNCERTAIN 31 % NO 31 %

• No objections in principle but data protection/privacy• Direct approaches from students• Details were already available to students• Could demonstrate the range of institutions in other ways

Question 11 - Internal ProceduresQuestion 12 – Indep Mechanism CfC

• A given• Some interest in a mediation process

YES 89 % UNCERTAIN 11 % NO - %

YES 78 % UNCERTAIN 16 % NO 6 %

• Most thought CfC would serve the purpose• Differentiation between matters of process and matters of academic

judgement