News

Editorial: Russell Group student newspapers for no-detriment policy

Editors from all 24 universities of the Russell Group Universities stand together against the Russell Group stance of no 'no detriment' policy support.

Editorial: Russell Group student newspapers for no-detriment policy

As the editors of Russell Group student newspapers, we are writing collectively to request a reversal of the Russell Group’s statement, 7 January 2020, ‘on ensuring fair assessment and protecting the integrity of degrees.’

As editors, not only are we students ourselves but we are also in constant contact with the students at our respective universities, as part of the function of our extracurricular roles. Apart from sharing in their collective experiences, we have a unique insight into their attitudes, viewpoints and beliefs. We speak and listen to them every day – and every day since the beginning of this academic year, we have heard students calling for more understanding, cooperation and empathy from university management. 

The statement shared by the Russell Group on 7 January showed the inconsistencies between what they and we understand to be adequate teaching. Whilst we enormously appreciate the hard work of teaching staff under these challenging circumstances and understand the complications ‘blended learning’ has presented, students have repeatedly said they have not been adequately supported throughout this pandemic. This is by no means to disregard the tremendous efforts of university staff, but it is simply a consequence of the realities of a year like no other in living memory. 

The lack of a ‘no detriment’ or ‘safety net’ policy has been a miscalculation by the Russell Group. Students have been left feeling abandoned by both the government and universities themselves. 

As the editors from student papers at all 24 of the 24 Russell Group Universities, we pick up and record the views of our students on a regular basis. What many are telling us, as a result of personal and shared difficulties, is that they do require the support a clearer ‘no detriment’ policy would deliver.

We object to the assumption made by the Russell Group that ‘emergency measures’ are no longer ‘necessary’ or ‘appropriate’. We are living through what are undeniably unprecedented times – this is a global emergency. The Prime Minister has labelled these weeks of the third lockdown as the critical point in the UK’s fight against the pandemic – death tolls are high, hospitals have reached capacity, we are still just in the early days of administering vaccines. Students, locked down in various levels of economic and social stability across the nation, are facing some of the most important exams we have sat in our lives to date – under some of the most difficult circumstances many will have faced. International students, too, have been working all term from various time zones across the globe, detached from the support of their student communities.

If anything, this point in the pandemic is perhaps the most urgent. We are now facing a mental health crisis amongst young people. Figures by WONKHE and Trendence have shown that more students feel lonely and isolated on a daily basis as a result of the pandemic. Surveys of undergraduates by various higher education policy advisers have found that over 50 per cent of students say their mental health has significantly deteriorated during the course of the pandemic, too. 

Students are attempting to sit assessments with a lack of resources, varying internet connections and mixed home environments. There are students without desks, who share bedrooms with siblings, who have caring responsibilities when they’re at home. Across the country, there are students from wide and varied backgrounds who are struggling to study for their final year assessments, many also affected by illness and bereavement owing to COVID-19. They do not deserve to be dismissed.  

Yet, no one from the Russell Group denied the emergency of the situation when metal fences were erected around halls at Manchester. Universities even went as far as to declare their own local emergencies by locking down individual residences during outbreaks amongst first years. There was no denial of ‘emergency’ when students were being blamed in the media for spikes in national COVID-19 cases. 

A-level and GCSE exams have been adjusted to as if this were an emergency – so why aren’t the Russell Group responding in the same way for university students? 

You have explained to our respective Student Unions that it is more appropriate for universities to provide ‘a range of policies and tools’ to ensure fair assessment for students. Whilst we agree some universities will need to adapt their policy on an individual basis, the Russell Group’s collective position against ‘no detriment’ or ‘safety net’ policy does not match the reality of what many students have faced, and are continuing to face, this year.

In principle, a ‘no detriment’ or ‘safety net’ policy should ensure a student’s grade is not worsened as a result of the pandemic. Currently, many of your universities’ mitigatory policies amount to simply offering more time for assessments. Frankly, a matter of extra days or a week is not sufficient for the challenges that we have outlined above, which students are facing in real time.

We understand that an algorithmic approach is not entirely viable due to the lack of benchmark data for many students at this stage of the 2020/21 academic year – that’s a mathematical given. But it is by no means impossible to support an alternative ‘no detriment’ policy built for the circumstances. The University of York, for instance, is implementing a comprehensive policy, taking into account the unique challenges posed by this pandemic, as opposed to reshuffling and extending existing policies. 

By readjusting the weightings of each year towards a student’s overall degree and choosing the better of the two for second- and final-year undergraduates, as well as allowing first-years to re-sit up to 90 failed credits in exams, the University of York have introduced an appropriate and fair policy. It fulfills on the principle of ‘no detriment’, allowing students to simply focus on their studies, confident they will not be impacted by COVID-19, whilst preserving the value of their degrees to employers. 

We commend their approach, and urge all Russell Group universities to introduce similarly comprehensive policies.

Whilst we understand that every subject, university and student is different, showing the understanding and empathy to their students embodied in the York approach should be a basic requirement.

Overall, many students will of course respect and largely agree with your desire to maintain degree standards comparative to other years and to ensure, as you say, that they still ‘command the confidence of employers and professional bodies’. However, where other aspects of society have shifted or seen unprecedented measures introduced over the course of the last year, we believe a reweighting or rescaling of degrees is certainly possible. The students we write for and hear from daily are not asking for a policy that allows them to stop working or learning, but one that simply takes a true account and acknowledgment of the pandemic’s reality.

Ultimately, you claim you want to uphold the integrity of our degrees. Yet a university’s first responsibility is to its students and acting with integrity ought to mean upholding this responsibility. Many students across the country have not received the ‘blended’ or ‘hybrid’ learning experience they were told they would; many are now separated from their campuses, with its facilities and libraries, due to a third national lockdown brought about largely by an unforeseen variant; many are facing personal, long-term hardship as a result of the virus, and/or extreme difficulties at home.

The integrity of a degree, too – students would hope – should encompass a focus on the opportunity to learn and study as well as a focus on rankings and outcomes. The integrity of university institutions should entail safeguarding the mental wellbeing of its students. Under the current plans by most Russell Group universities, students are reporting to us loudly that neither of these are currently in line.

Students have not been quiet about their concerns. With exams fast approaching, and some already underway, now is the time for Russell Groups universities to act compassionately and responsibly.

From Issue 1760

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

More from this section

ICU President says proposed rent rises  “strictly unacceptable.”

ICU President says proposed rent rises “strictly unacceptable.”

Union President Camille Boutrolle has appealed to students to “make some noise” and to lobby “personal tutors”, “halls wardens”, and “teachers” against proposed rent increases for student halls in a blog post on IC Union’s website. Both Boutrolle and Deputy President (Welfare) Nico Henry have been lobbying Imperial College

By Mohammad Majlisi

Westminster Council holding consultation on changes to rent licenses

Westminster Council is holding a consultation on changes to rent licenses until January 2025. The consultation is on proposals introducing a selected licensing scheme for landlords to improve the quality of housing available within the areas of borough. The Council is proposing creating checks for landlords to ensure they are

By Mohammad Majlisi

Former Australian PM Julia Gillard at Imperial

Julia Gillard, Chair of the Wellcome Trust and former Prime Minister of Australia, delivered the Institute of Global Health Innovation’s Special Lecture in the Sir Alexander Fleming Building on Thursday 28th November. She examined the outlook for science and politics, tackling the implications for global cooperation on pivotal issues

By Nadeen Daka and Isabella Duchovny