An analysis of how often “Firsts” and other classes are assigned in Cambridge University exams

(Second edition)

by Bernard Rivers (bernard.rivers@gmail.com)

First edition published 26 February 2015

Second edition published 29 February 2016

Available at www.BernardRivers.com/exam-analysis

Contents

A:Executive Summary2

B:Introduction3

C:What this analysis does not look into – performance by college3

D:Main findings: Increases over time, and significant variations among Triposes, in percentages of students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds4

E:Norm referencing10

F:Comparison of Tripos Classes with ‘A Level’ performance11

G:Comparison of Cambridge with other Russell Group universities12

H:Issues arising13

I:Recommendations14

J:The Cambridge University response16

K:Link to Tripos-specific memos and data17

L:Data and sources17

Tripos-specific index18

Bernard Rivers is a retired British economist and a Cambridge University graduate. During 2013-2014 he was a visiting fellow at Cambridge. From 2002 to 2012 he was Executive Director of Aidspan, an international non-governmental organisation he founded in New York and later moved to Nairobi. Previously, he founded and ran a software company in New York. He divides his time between Kenya and the USA.

A:Executive Summary

During the period from 1960 to 2015, the percentage of Cambridge University undergraduates awarded a First Class Honours degree increased from 10% to 24%, and the percentage awarded a First or an Upper-Second increased from 34% to 80%, an analysis I have conducted reveals. (See Finding 1.) It is not clear to what extent this increase is a manifestation of “grade inflation” (a term that implies a lowering of standards) and to what extent it is caused by a steady increase in the calibre and diligence of the students.

The analysis also reveals that the percentages of students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds vary significantly among the different Triposes (i.e. subject areas). (See many of the Findings.)

The findings of the analysis, which is based entirely on public-domain data, include the following:

· There was a shift in how Firsts were allocated in 2015, subsequent to the release a year ago of the first edition of this analysis. The percentage of Part II Arts students awarded a First decreased from 30.0% to 28.7% in 2015 (having previously increased from 16.8% to 30.0% during 2000–2014). And the percentage of Part II Sciences students awarded a First decreased from 28.7% to 27.5% in 2015 (having previously remained essentially flat during 2000–2014). (See Finding 4.)

· However, there was no such reversal in 2015 regarding Upper-Seconds. The percentage of Part II Arts students awarded Firsts plus Upper-Seconds increased from 94.0% to 94.7% in 2015 (having previously increased from 84.2% to 94.0% during 2000–2014). And the percentage of Part II Sciences students awarded Firsts plus Upper-Seconds increased from 80.6% to 81.6% in 2015 (having previously remained essentially flat during 2000–2014.) (See Finding 4.)

· Marked variations between Triposes in the percentages of students awarded both Firsts and Upper-Seconds, as revealed a year ago in the first edition of this analysis, continued unabated in 2015. For instance, in 2015 a First was awarded to 42% of Part II History of Arts students but to only 15% of Part II Education students. (See Finding 5.)

· Meanwhile, in 2015 a First or Upper-Second was awarded to 99% of Part II Classics students, 98% of Part II History students, 97% of Part II Modern and Medieval Languages students and 96% of Part II English students – but to only 73% of Part II Mathematics students and 69% of Part II Chemical Engineering students. (See Finding 5.)

· Of the 875 students who took Part II Theological and Religious Studies between 2000 and 2014, not one was awarded a Third; then in 2015, two out of 44 were awarded Thirds. (See Finding 9.)

· Analysis of the ‘A Level’ scores of arriving Cambridge students suggests that variations between Triposes in percentages of students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds are not explainable solely by variations between Triposes in the entry qualifications of students. (See Finding 12.)

· Between 2002 and 2012, Cambridge University awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds to somewhat lower percentages of final-year students than did Oxford University, but to somewhat higher percentages of final-year students than did the other 22 Russell Group universities collectively. (See Finding 13.)

In the author’s opinion, a ‘Cambridge Upper-Second’ has ceased to be a class that one can be proud to receive in subjects such as History, English, Classics and Languages, because an Upper-Second gets awarded in those subjects to virtually everyone who doesn’t get a First.

There are no natural forces at work to cause these trends to be reversed. In the author’s opinion, students are hardly likely to demand that more of their number be awarded Lower-Seconds and Thirds instead of Firsts and Upper-Seconds.

The author believes that the university’s individual faculties should make changes that primarily involve norm referencing (i.e. pre-determining the percentages of Firsts, Upper-Seconds, Lower-Seconds and Thirds that will be awarded), a practice already followed with a few Triposes. In the absence of effective action along these lines, the university’s central administration should rule that for each Tripos, the percentage of students awarded a First should not exceed 20% for first- and second-year students and 25% for final-year students, and the percentage of students awarded a First or Upper-Second should not exceed 75% for first- and second-year students and 85% for final-year students.

B:Introduction

During 2013-14, after an absence of over 40 years, I spent a year at Queens’ College, Cambridge, this time not as an undergraduate but as the equivalent of a visiting fellow. When I arrived I was struck by how many Firsts and Upper-Seconds and how few Lower-Seconds and Thirds were being awarded across the university as compared with when I was an undergraduate. This got me wondering about how extensive and persistent such changes have been and what might be the reasons.

One reason I’m interested in this topic is that in 1969 I served on an Economics faculty staff-student committee that studied the extent to which two independent markers assign different grades to the same exam scripts, and that reviewed whether students should have the option to submit dissertations in place of one or two exams. When some of our recommendations were, after minor modifications, accepted by the faculty and students but not by the university, there was a major student protest and a consequent inquiry by Lord Devlin.

The official research project I conducted during my recent time at Queens’ was on a completely different topic, and I extend my sincere thanks to the college for hosting me while I worked on that project. But because of my interest in the data and politics of exams, and because it appeared that nobody had previously studied the subject in depth, I decided that in my spare time I would build a database of Cambridge University exam results (making use only of public-domain data) and would then conduct an analysis. Most of that work was conducted while I was in residence at Queens’, but I did not seek endorsement from Queens’, from the individual faculties, or from the university, and they bear no responsibility whatever for the analysis. The same applies to HESA and Unistats, discussed below.

Background note for those unfamiliar with the Cambridge system: Each Cambridge undergraduate normally spends three years studying for a “Tripos” (i.e. a subject area) and attending lectures provided by one or more faculties or departments. At the end of each year, the student takes several three-hour examinations. Based upon his/her performance in those exams, possibly supplemented by his/her performance in some practical tests and/or a short dissertation, nearly every student is placed in “Class I” (the best), “Class II Division 1”, “Class II Division 2”, or “Class III”. Colloquially, this is known as earning a “First” (i.e. First Class Honours), an “Upper-Second” or “2.1”, a “Lower-Second” or “2.2”, or a “Third”. A very small number of students are classified in some other way, including being deemed to have failed. The class awarded each student takes no account of his/her performance in classwork and in weekly supervisions through the year. The student is classed each year; no aggregate class is provided based on performance over all three years. During the student’s first year, a few Triposes provide “unclassified” exams, in which students simply pass or fail, and a few Triposes do not divide the Second Class degree into an Upper-Second and Lower-Second.

C:What this analysis does not look into – performance by college

Two Cambridge graduates, Martin Baxter and Peter Tompkins, have for many years independently produced annual tabulations of Cambridge exam results. Baxter’s tables are not published; they are privately circulated on a restricted basis within the university. Tompkins’ tables are drawn upon primarily by the Independent newspaper for occasional articles on the topic. Both Baxter and Tompkins seek to quantitatively compare the exam performance of students in different colleges.

The methodology used by both Baxter and Tompkins is to assign five points for a First, three for an Upper-Second, two for a Lower-Second, and one for a Third, and then to report the average “score” of students within each college, subject by subject and across all subjects. Baxter and Tompkins each then use further tweaks to that methodology.

While the approach of Baxter and Tompkins focuses on colleges, my approach focuses on faculties, departments and Triposes, because these are the controlling entities regarding the assignment of exam classes. A particular college might select for admission or for financial support students who it believes may perform particularly well in the exams, or it might give its students particularly effective academic support; but it cannot actually determine or control the classes given to individual students.

D:Main findings: Increases over time, and significant variations among Triposes, in percentages of students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds

Finding 1: There have been significant increases over time in the percentage of Cambridge students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds. Between 1960 and 2015, as shown below, the percentage of all students across the university awarded a First in their first-, second- or final-year exams increased from 10% to 24%. And the percentage across the university awarded a First or an Upper-Second increased from 34% to 80%.

Chart 1: Increases in percentages of first-, second- and final-year Cambridge students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds, 19602015

The remainder of this analysis deals only with the years 2000-2015.

Finding 2: Within each calendar year, there have been extensive variations among Triposes in the percentages of students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds. This is illustrated in the following chart, which provides blue lines for all Part II students in each of the 22 larger Triposes. The black lines shows university-wide totals.

Chart 2: Variations among Triposes in percentages of Part II Cambridge students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds, 2000-2015

If we repeat Chart 2, but use red lines for Sciences Triposes and green lines for Arts Triposes, we find as follows. (See Section L for which Triposes are defined as Arts and which are defined as Sciences.)

Finding 3: Until about 2010, Part II examiners for most Arts Triposes (shown in green) awarded Firsts to a lower percentage of students than did those for most Sciences Triposes (red); since then, there has been no significant difference between Firsts in Arts Triposes and Firsts in Sciences Triposes. However, Part II examiners for nearly all Arts Triposes have consistently awarded Firsts or Upper-Seconds to a higher percentage of students than have those for Sciences Triposes.

Chart 3: Differing patterns of behaviour by examiners for Sciences and Arts Triposes Part II students

Finding 4: There was a shift in how Firsts were allocated in 2015, subsequent to the release a year ago of the first edition of this analysis. The percentage of Part II Arts students awarded a First decreased from 30.0% to 28.7% in 2015 (having previously increased from 16.8% to 30.0% during 2000–2014). And the percentage of Part II Sciences students awarded a First decreased from 28.7% to 27.5% in 2015 (having previously remained essentially flat during 2000–2014).

However, there was no such reversal in 2015 regarding Upper-Seconds. The percentage of Part II Arts students awarded Firsts plus Upper-Seconds increased from 94.0% to 94.7% in 2015 (having previously increased from 84.2% to 94.0% during 2000–2014). And the percentage of Part II Sciences students awarded Firsts plus Upper-Seconds increased from 80.6% to 81.6% in 2015 (having previously remained essentially flat during 2000–2014.)

Chart 4: Growth in percentages among Arts Triposes vs. Sciences Triposes for Part II students

Finding 5: Marked variations between Triposes in the percentages of students awarded both Firsts and Upper-Seconds, as revealed a year ago in the first edition of this analysis, continued unabated in 2015.

For instance, regarding Part II students awarded Firsts (see Charts 5A and 8):

· Between 2000 and 2015, examiners for the Law Tripos awarded a First to an average of 17% of students, whereas examiners for the Mathematics Tripos awarded a First to an average of 32% of students. And examiners for the Education Tripos increased the percentage of students awarded a First from 11% (16 out of 146 students) in 2000 to 47% (16 out of 34 students) in 2014, before dropping dramatically back to 15% (5 out of 34 students) in 2015.

· In 2015, the Triposes with the highest percentages of students awarded a First were History of Art (42%), Classics (37%), Asian and Middle-Eastern Studies (36%), Philosophy (35%), Modern & Medieval Languages (35%), History (33%) and Mathematics (33%); those with the lowest percentages were Geography (17%) and Education (15%).

And regarding Part II students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds (see Charts 5B and 8):

· Between 2000 and 2015, examiners for the Chemical Engineering Tripos awarded a First or an Upper-Second to an average of 68% of students, whereas those for the History Tripos awarded a First or an Upper-Second to an average of 97% of students. And examiners for the English Tripos increased the percentage of students awarded a First or an Upper-Second from 75% to 96%.

· In 2015, the Triposes with the highest percentages of students awarded a First or an Upper-Second were Classics (99%), History (98%), Land Economy (98%), Music (98%), Modern and Medieval Languages (97%), English (96%) and History of Art (96%); those with the lowest percentages were Engineering (76%), Mathematics (73%) and Chemical Engineering (69%).

Chart 5A

Chart 5B

Finding 6: Considerable variations can also be found among the different subject options within the Natural Sciences Part II Tripos. In 2015, for instance, in subjects that had at least 24 examinees, percentages of students awarded Firsts ranged from 8% (Biological and Biomedical Sciences) to 48% (History & Philosophy of Science), and percentages awarded a First or Upper-Second ranged from 76% (Biological and Biomedical Sciences) to 100% (Pharmacology, and also Physiology, Development & Neuroscience). See below. (Note: admission to study some of these subject options is selective.)

Chart 6A

Chart 6B

Finding 7: In each of the years 2012 to 2015, the percentage of Part II students in each of the History, MML, Classics and English Triposes who were awarded a First or an Upper-Second was higher than the percentage across all Part II Sciences students who were awarded a First or an Upper-Second or a Lower-Second.

Chart 7: Part II for four Arts Triposes vs Part II for all Sciences Triposes combined

Finding 8: The same issue is also illustrated in the next chart, which shows, for 2015 only, the percentage of students assigned to each class (blue for First, brown for Upper-Second, orange for Lower-Second and purple for Third plus “other”) for each Part II Tripos. The chart shows that all students assigned a Lower-Second within Engineering, Computer Science, Mathematics, Chemical Engineering, Philosophy, or Asian & Middle-Eastern Studies (jointly circled in black on the left) would, if they had scored similarly in History of Art, English, MML, Land Economy, Music, History or Classics (jointly circled in black on the right) have been assigned an Upper-Second.

Chart 8: For 2015, comparison in approaches to the Lower-Second among Part II Triposes

Finding 9: On average over the years 2000–2015, Part II examiners in six of the 22 main Triposes (the Arts Triposes History of Art, Geography, MML, Theological & Religious Studies, History, and Classics) have assigned a Third to less than 0.5% of their students. Over this same time period, Part II examiners in four other Triposes (the Science Triposes Mathematics, Engineering, Computer Science and Chemical Engineering) have assigned a Third to over 4.5% of their students. It’s worth noting that of the 875 students who took Part II Theological and Religious Studies between 2000 and 2014, not one was awarded a Third; but then in 2015, two (out of 44) were awarded Thirds. See the chart below.

Chart 9: For 2000-2015, comparison in approaches to the Third in Part II among Triposes

Finding 10: As shown in Chart 10, the percentages of students awarded both Firsts and Upper-Seconds are higher in Part II (i.e. final-year) exams than in first- and second-year exams.

Chart 10: University-wide first-year exams (dots), second-year exams (dashes) and Part II (i.e. final-year) exams (solid)

(Continued next page)

E:Norm referencing

When examiners “normalise” or “norm reference” their grades, or “mark to the curve”, they specify in advance how many of their students will be awarded each class. Thus, if they specify that 20% of their students will be awarded a First, they mark all students and then assign a First to the 20% with the best marks. The target “normalisation percentages” within a Tripos might, or might not, vary from year to year. And the target might, or might not, vary between first-year, second-year and final-year students.

Finding 11: A recent Chair of the Mathematics Faculty wrote to the author of this analysis that “For as long as I can remember, the Faculty of Mathematics has norm referenced its Tripos results. E.g. in the 70s there were 25% firsts, but this was increased to about 30% firsts in the mid-80s.” This is illustrated in Chart 11A. Most other Triposes appear not to normalise – see for instance the Economics Tripos, in Chart 11B.

Chart 11A: Illustration (using the Mathematics Tripos) of norm referencing. First-year exams (dots), second-year exams (dashes) and final-year exams (solid).

Chart 11B: Illustration (using the Economics Tripos) of apparent lack of norm referencing. First-year exams (dots), second-year exams (dashes) and final-year exams (solid).

F:Comparison of Tripos Classes with ‘A Level’ performance

One question that naturally arises is whether the Triposes in which the highest percentages of students have been awarded a First are the same Triposes that were most often chosen by students who arrived at Cambridge with extremely high GCE ‘A Level’ scores. This is examined as follows.

Finding 12: The percentages of students who were awarded a First in Part II during the years 2013-2015 ranged from 37% (Modern and Medieval Languages Tripos) down to 20% (Architecture Tripos); these are shown in the brown columns below.

The blue columns show the percentages of students admitted in 2011-2013 to study each such Tripos who had a UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) Tariff score of at least 600 points. (This score is even higher than the 560 points that would be earned by a student who had four “A Star” passes at ‘A Level’.) The Tripos with the highest percentage of students with UCAS Tariff scores of at least 600 points was Mathematics, at 83%; the Tripos with the lowest such percentage was Theological and Religious Studies, at 20%.

The chart suggests that no obvious relationship exists between the brown columns and the blue ones. For instance, the percentage of Mathematics students who arrived at Cambridge during 2011-2013 with a UCAS Tariff score of at least 600 points was very high (83%), and the percentage of History students who arrived with such a score was much lower (39%); but the percentage of Part II students awarded a First over the years 2013-2015 was higher for History than for Mathematics.

In other words, there is no obvious evidence that “the best students” (based on GCE ‘A Level’ scores) choose to study a few particular Triposes and that students from these Triposes are then awarded the most Firsts.

Chart 12:

Brown columns: Percentages of students awarded a First in Part II during 2013-2015.

Blue columns: Percentages of students admitted in 2011-2013 with a UCAS Tariff score of at least 600 points.

G:Comparison of Cambridge with other Russell Group universities

Finding 13: For final-year Sciences subjects collectively, as shown in Chart 13A, Cambridge University awards both Firsts and Upper-Seconds to a somewhat lower percentage of students than Oxford University does, but to a somewhat higher percentage of students than the other 22 Russell Group universities do collectively. For final-year Arts subjects collectively, as shown in Chart 13B, Cambridge awards Firsts to about the same percentage of students as Oxford does, and awards Upper-Seconds to a slightly lower percentage of students than Oxford does. Both universities award final-year Firsts and Upper-Seconds to a significantly higher percentage of students than the other 22 Russell Group universities do collectively. (See Note 3 on Russell Group universities in Section L below on data.)

It is the case at Cambridge (as already discussed in Finding 4), and at Oxford, and at the other Russell Group universities collectively, that from 2002 through 2012: (a) final-year Firsts were awarded to a higher percentage of Sciences students than Arts students, but (b) final-year Firsts plus Upper-Seconds were awarded to a higher percentage of Arts than Sciences students. See Charts 13A and 13B.

Charts 13C and 13D are as per Charts 13A and 13B except the Russell Group universities are shown individually rather than collectively. As shown, in 2012, Russell Group universities other than Cambridge and Oxford awarded Firsts to between 21% and 38% of their final-year Sciences students, and awarded Firsts or Upper-Seconds to between 61% and 86% of their final-year Sciences students. The figures for Arts are 12% to 24% for Firsts, and 74% to 89% for Firsts or Upper-Seconds.

Chart 13A (Sciences, final year)

Chart 13B (Arts, final year)

Cambridge (red and green), Oxford (purple and blue), and other Russell Group universities collectively (black)

Chart 13C (Sciences, final year)

Chart 13D (Arts, final year)

Cambridge (red and green), Oxford (purple and blue), and other Russell Group universities individually (black)

H:Issues arising

The findings in this analysis raise a number of issues, as follows:

Issue 1: Do the steadily increasing percentages of Cambridge students being awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds, as illustrated in Chart 1, represent “grade inflation”? (This term is generally used to indicate that exams have been made easier or that the exam score needed in order to be awarded a First or an Upper-Second has been made lower.) Or do the increasing percentages result instead from “better students” – i.e. from a steady increase in the average calibre and diligence of the students – and/or from “better teachers”?

Opinion: This can’t be answered from the available data. But my own view, based on multiple conversations with Cambridge faculty, is that across the university as a whole, “better students” is at least a factor in the increases in the percentages of students awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds. (However, for an opinion at the Tripos level, see the next point.)

Issue 2: Why is it that the percentage of Part II students being awarded Firsts in the Education Tripos increased from 11% in 2000 to 47% in 2014 (see Chart 5A), and that the percentage of Part II students being awarded Firsts or Upper-Seconds in the English Tripos increased from 75% in 2000 to 96% in 2015 (see Chart 5B)? Did those Triposes really attract dramatically improving students, year by year? Or did grade inflation take place?

Opinion: These increases cannot be fully explained by improvements in student quality. It is clear that some grade inflation has taken place in these Triposes.

Conversely, for certain Triposes such as Mathematics (see Chart 11A), it is clear that there has been no grade inflation, because percentages of students being awarded Firsts and Upper-Seconds have remained static since at least 2000. If, over the years, there has been any improvement at all within those Triposes in the calibre of the students or in the quality of the teaching, this means that what has been going on there actually represents “grade deflation”, because it is becoming steadily harder for students of a particular level of ability to earn Firsts or Upper-Seconds in those Triposes.

Issue 3: What are we to conclude from Finding 5, which shows that the percentage of Part II students awarded a First in 2015 ranged between 42% in one Tripos and 15% in another; and that the percentage of Part II students awarded a First or Upper-Second ranged between 99% in one Tripos and 69% in another? Is it that the very best students entering Cambridge are disproportionately drawn to certain Triposes?

Opinion: The analysis in Finding 12 provides no evidence that the Triposes that award the most Firsts and Upper-Seconds are able to do so because they have attracted far more of the very best students. As a result, there appears to be no logical and equitable reason why some Triposes award Firsts and Upper-Seconds to far higher percentages of students than do others.

(Note: A member of the History faculty responded to a draft version of the first edition of this analysis by saying “the History Faculty criterion for matriculation is the high probability that the candidate, if accepted, will be capable of achieving an upper-second degree or higher.” At first sight, this might explain why, in 2015, 98.4% of History Part II students were awarded a First or an Upper-Second. But given that the selection of students for entry to Cambridge is carried out by the colleges, not by the faculties, this faculty member is implying that the colleges universally seek to honour the History Faculty’s criterion for matriculation. If so, why is it that the colleges also admit students among whom, in some other subjects, much lower percentages end up being awarded Firsts or Upper-Seconds? Do the colleges say to themselves, “We must only admit the super-capable applicants for reading History; but for other subjects we can set the bar somewhat lower”? A more likely explanation is that it is the History faculty itself that lowers the bar, come exam time, ensuring that just about everybody gets a First or an Upper-Second.)

Issue 4: In some Triposes (e.g. Mathematics and Chemical Engineering), around a quarter of Part II students were awarded a Lower-Second or a Third in 2015. But almost no Part II students were awarded a Lower-Second or a Third in Triposes such as History, English, Classics, and Modern and Medieval Languages. What are the implications of this?

Opinion: In these latter Triposes, a ‘Cambridge Upper-Second’ has ceased to be a class that one can be proud to receive, because it gets awarded to virtually everyone who doesn’t get a First.

Issue 5: What is likely to happen over the coming years regarding the issues discussed in this analysis?

Opinion: There are no natural forces at work to cause these trends to be reversed. Students within the Arts faculties in which Firsts and Upper-Seconds are granted to almost every student are hardly likely to demand that more of their number be awarded Lower-Seconds and Thirds instead of Firsts and Upper-Seconds.

Accordingly, it seems very likely that over the years, these trends will continue unless and until Cambridge’s central administration pushes for a consistent approach among Triposes to the assignment of classes.

I:Recommendations

The university’s faculties and departments should discuss this topic with each other and with the university’s central administration, and should then make changes in policy and practice that primarily involve norm referencing (i.e. pre-determining the percentages of Firsts, Upper-Seconds, Lower-Seconds and Thirds that will be awarded), a practice already followed with a few Triposes.

In the absence of effective action along these lines by the university’s faculties and departments, the university’s central administration should rule that:

(a) For each Tripos, the percentage of students awarded a First should not exceed 20% for first- and second-year students and 25% for final-year students, and the percentage of students awarded a First or Upper-Second should not exceed 75% for first- and second-year students and 85% for final-year students. [footnoteRef:1]* [1: *Each of these figures is within one percentage point of the average that has pertained over the past ten years.]

(b) After the publication of class lists each year, the central administration should publish a report showing what the actual percentages were for each Tripos/student-year combination. This report should include, for each Tripos/student-year combination for which actual percentages did not comply with the recommended maxima, an explanation for this by the examiners.

The following tables show, for each Sciences and Arts Tripos, the percentages of students who were awarded (a) a First, and (b) a First or Upper-Second, in (c) first- and second-year exams and (d) final-year exams, in (e) 2000 and (f) 2015. In each case, the percentage is shown in green when it complied with the recommended maxima, and in red when it did not. The percentage is shown as “n/a” when the exam was not offered in the calendar year in question or for the student year in question, or when there were fewer than 24 examinees for the exam in question.

SCIENCES Triposes:

Tripos

Student year

 

Recommended maxima

 

2000, Actual

2015, Actual

First

First + 2.1

First

First + 2.1

First

First + 2.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chemical Engineering

Year 1+2

 

20%

75%

 

29.5%

77.3%

 

37.7%

75.4%

Final year

 

25%

85%

 

29.7%

81.1%

 

32.3%

69.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Computer Science

Year 1+2

 

20%

75%

 

26.9%

60.8%

 

23.8%

64.6%

Final year

 

25%

85%

 

30.0%

63.3%

 

31.1%

82.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Engineering

Year 1+2

 

20%

75%

 

20.3%

59.7%

 

29.8%

80.0%

Final year

 

25%

85%

 

24.4%

71.7%

 

28.2%

75.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manufacturing Engineering

Year 1+2

 

20%

75%

 

n/a

n/a

 

n/a

n/a

Final year

 

25%

85%

 

15.9%

84.1%

 

27.8%

86.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mathematics

Year 1+2

 

20%

75%

 

28.9%

68.5%

 

30.7%

73.5%

Final year

 

25%

85%

 

31.9%

75.1%

 

32.7%

73.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medical and Veterinary Sciences

Year 1+2

 

20%

75%

 

21.7%

57.2%

 

16.8%

74.9%

Final year

 

25%

85%

 

n/a

n/a

 

n/a

n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Sciences

Year 1+2

 

20%

75%

 

25.1%

59.0%

 

24.3%

65.9%

Final year

 

25%

85%

 

29.1%

81.1%

 

25.3%

85.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Psychological and Behavioural Sciences

Year 1+2

 

20%

75%

 

n/a

n/a

 

24.2%

87.9%

Final year

 

25%

85%

 

n/a

n/a

 

n/a

n/a

ARTS Triposes:

Tripos

Student year

Recommended maxima

 

2000

2015

First

First + 2.1

First

First + 2.1

First

First + 2.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic

Year 1+2

20%

75%

15.6%

71.9%

22.4%

85.7%

Final year

25%

85%

 

n/a

n/a

 

n/a

n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

Archaeology and Anthropology

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

10.7%

78.6%

 

n/a

n/a

Final year

25%

85%

 

18.4%

88.2%

 

30.3%

92.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Architecture

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

18.1%

72.2%

 

22.4%

78.9%

Final year

25%

85%

 

25.0%

81.3%

 

20.0%

92.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asian and Middle Eastern Studies

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

16.7%

54.5%

 

23.5%

77.6%

Final year

25%

85%

 

n/a

n/a

 

35.9%

89.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classics

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

10.7%

66.7%

 

11.2%

85.0%

Final year

25%

85%

 

19.2%

83.6%

 

37.3%

98.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economics

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

n/a

n/a

 

34.9%

81.7%

Final year

25%

85%

 

10.0%

76.0%

 

23.7%

86.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

5.7%

68.4%

 

8.3%

94.4%

Final year

25%

85%

 

11.0%

89.7%

 

14.7%

91.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

English

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

12.3%

77.3%

 

24.1%

92.5%

Final year

25%

85%

 

16.9%

74.9%

 

29.1%

96.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geography

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

8.7%

72.8%

 

12.9%

88.1%

Final year

25%

85%

 

13.8%

81.3%

 

17.4%

90.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

History

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

15.9%

89.9%

 

17.1%

93.4%

Final year

25%

85%

 

21.1%

93.3%

 

33.3%

98.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

History of Art

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

23.5%

82.4%

 

15.7%

94.1%

Final year

25%

85%

 

8.0%

96.0%

 

41.7%

95.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Human, Social and Political Sciences

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

n/a

n/a

 

18.3%

94.8%

Final year

25%

85%

 

n/a

n/a

 

n/a

n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land Economy

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

10.6%

77.3%

 

10.9%

91.1%

Final year

25%

85%

 

n/a

n/a

 

28.6%

98.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

6.6%

72.8%

 

15.0%

86.8%

Final year

25%

85%

 

17.7%

81.0%

 

28.9%

95.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Linguistics

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

n/a

n/a

 

27.1%

88.1%

Final year

25%

85%

 

n/a

n/a

 

44.8%

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Management Studies

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

n/a

n/a

 

n/a

n/a

Final year

25%

85%

 

11.1%

86.7%

 

19.7%

93.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modern and Medieval Languages

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

13.2%

78.4%

 

21.2%

95.1%

Final year

25%

85%

 

20.0%

90.9%

 

35.0%

96.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Music

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

14.4%

60.4%

 

28.8%

89.0%

Final year

25%

85%

 

22.0%

71.2%

 

26.8%

98.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philosophy

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

7.4%

68.1%

 

22.1%

87.2%

Final year

25%

85%

 

16.0%

82.0%

 

35.1%

86.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Politics, Psychology and Sociology

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

n/a

n/a

 

n/a

n/a

Final year

25%

85%

 

18.5%

88.5%

 

29.4%

95.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theological and Religious Studies

Year 1+2

20%

75%

 

n/a

n/a

 

17.8%

90.0%

Final year

25%

85%

 

27.1%

97.9%

 

18.2%

93.2%

J:The Cambridge University response

A pre-release version of the first edition of this analysis was sent to the university’s Head of Educational and Student Policy. She shared it with the University’s then Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education, who placed the matter on the agenda of the 18 December 2013 meeting of the Cambridge University General Board’s Education Committee, which he chaired. The Head of Educational and Student Policy subsequently wrote to tell the author of this analysis that the Committee, in discussing the matter, noted that responsibility for classing criteria lies with Faculty Boards. She said that the Committee also noted that Faculty Boards might wish to consider the data along with other factors “in reviewing the core competencies and classing criteria for their courses.”

A pre-release version of the first edition of this analysis was also sent to the Faculty Board Chair and various examiners at most of the Cambridge University faculties. All were given the opportunity to request corrections prior to publication of the first edition. No such requests were received. After its release, the first edition was discussed at various Faculty Board meetings.

The first edition of this analysis led to news articles in Times Higher Education (“THE”) (8 March 2015), The Independent (9 March 2015) and The Cambridge Student (5 March 2015).

The first two of these articles incorporated the following response by a spokesman for the university:

“The university is satisfied that our quality assurance processes are robust, and that our classing systems recognise student achievement appropriately. The general increase in the number of firsts mirrors the position nationally, and Cambridge’s figures are in line with those at other Russell Group institutions.”

Opinion: I have no problem with the second of those two sentences. But I am puzzled when the first sentence says that Cambridge’s classing systems “recognise student achievement appropriately.” It’s very clear that students of similar ability studying different subjects can come out with contrasting degree results – as, for instance, when 98% of Part II History students in 2015 got a First or Upper-Second but only 73% of Part II Mathematics students did (see Finding 5).

K:Link to Tripos-specific memos and data

At www.BernardRivers.com/exam-analysis, links are provided to (a) downloadable versions of the first and second editions of this analysis; (b) one downloadable memo per Tripos, each memo containing detailed charts comparing the awarding of Firsts and Upper-Seconds in that Tripos with the awarding of such classes in other Triposes; and (c) one downloadable spreadsheet file per Tripos, providing all relevant data for that Tripos. The documents referenced in (b) and (c) have not been updated since February 2015, and thus do not include reference to examination results for 2015.

L:Data and sources

All the Cambridge-related data drawn upon for this analysis are in the public domain.

This analysis deals primarily with those Part II (i.e. final-year) Cambridge University undergraduate examinations and related forms of assessment for which the successful candidates were awarded First Class Honours, Upper-Second Class Honours, Lower-Second Class Honours or Third Class Honours.

The lines for specific Triposes shown in the charts in this analysis cover the 22 Cambridge University Triposes that since at least 2000 have provided exams for undergraduates in at least their second and third years, and for which the Part II exams have been taken by at least 24 students every year from at least 2008 through 2015. With the colour red used for Triposes defined by the university as Sciences and the colour green used for those defined as Arts, the 22 Triposes are: Archaeology and Anthropology; Architecture; Asian and Middle Eastern Studies (previously, Oriental Studies); Chemical Engineering; Classics; Computer Science; Economics; Education (including Education Studies); Engineering; English; Geography; History; History of Art; Land Economy; Law; Mathematics; Modern and Medieval Languages; Music; Natural Sciences; Philosophy; Politics, Psychology, and Sociology (previously, Social and Political Sciences); and Theological and Religious Studies.

Lines are not shown for Triposes that do not meet all the above criteria – namely Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic; Human, Social and Political Sciences; Linguistics; Management Studies; Manufacturing Engineering; Medical and Veterinary Sciences; Psychological and Behavioural Sciences; and Theology for Ministry. However, these Triposes are included as appropriate when Part II totals/averages are computed across Sciences/Arts/all Triposes.

The data used for Finding 1 regarding 1960-2000 were obtained from an issue of the University Reporter at www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/1999-2000/special/21/1.pdf, and for Finding 1 regarding 2001-2010 were obtained from an issue of the University Reporter at www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2010-11/special/04/studentnumbers0910.pdf. The data used for Finding 12 that relate to UCAS Tariff scores were obtained from http://unistats.direct.gov.uk. The data used for those parts of Finding 13 that relate to universities other than Cambridge were drawn from a spreadsheet kindly provided by the UK’s Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). The HESA data only relate to academic years ending 2002 through 2012.

All other data related to Cambridge University for 2000 through 2010 were taken from Tables 21 through 26 in the university’s “Student Numbers” publications at www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/planning/sso/reporter/index.html.

All data related to Cambridge for 2011 through 2015 were taken from Tables UNI_01 and UNI_03 of the reports available at www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/planning/sso/examinations. For 2011 and 2012, those reports say “For internal use only”, but they are in fact publicly available. Data for those two years are also available at www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/planning/sso/studentnumbers/index.html.

Note 1: For first-year students, the following Triposes do not divide the Second Class degree into an Upper-Second and Lower-Second: Classics, Medical and Veterinary Sciences (from 2001 to 2012), and Natural Sciences. Care has been taken, when computing the percentage of students within (say) firstyear Arts who were awarded a “First or Upper-Second”, to include in the denominator only those students who took exams for which a divided Second was offered. However, this was not possible in Chart 1, because the source data do not provide the required level of detail. Thus, in Chart 1 only, the percentages of students shown as being awarded an Upper-Second or a Lower-Second are expressed as a percentage of all students taking exams that year rather than as a percentage of all students taking exams for which a divided Second was offered.

Note 2: Some Sciences students at Cambridge are provided with the opportunity to do an extra year of study during which they take Mathematics Part III, Engineering Part IIB, Chemical Engineering Part IIB, Manufacturing Engineering Part II, Medical and Veterinary Sciences Part II, or Natural Sciences Part III. The taking of these exams is not required in order to be granted a first degree. Accordingly, results from these exams are excluded from this analysis. Likewise, LL.M. results are not included.

Note 3: The 24 Russell Group universities discussed in Finding 13 are Cambridge, Oxford, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Imperial College , King’s College London, Leeds, Liverpool, London School of Economics (LSE), Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Queen Mary and Westfield College, Sheffield, Southampton, University College London, Warwick and York. In Chart 13C (Sciences), LSE is excluded because it has very few science students, and in Chart 13D (Arts), Imperial College is excluded because it has very few arts students.

Tripos-specific index

Note: In the following, “memo at website” refers to a memo specific to each Tripos that can be accessed at www.BernardRivers.com/exam-analysis.

Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic

pp 15, 17 + memo at website

Archaeology and Anthropology

pp 8, 15, 17 + memo at website

Architecture

pp 8, 11, 15, 17 + memo at website

Asian and Middle Eastern Studies

pp 6, 8, 11, 15, 17+ memo at website

Chemical Engineering

pp 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18 + memo at website

Classics

pp 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18 + memo at website

Computer Science

pp 8, 11, 14, 17 + memo at website

Economics

pp 3, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17 + memo at website

Education

pp 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17 + memo at website

Engineering

pp 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 18 + memo at website

English

pp 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17 + memo at website

Geography

pp 6, 8, 11, 15, 17 + memo at website

History

pp 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17 + memo at website

History of Art

pp 2, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17 + memo at website

Human, Social and Political Sciences

pp 16, 17 + memo at website

Land Economy

pp 6, 8, 11, 16, 17 + memo at website

Law

pp 6, 8, 11, 16, 17 + memo at website

Linguistics

pp 16, 17 + memo at website

Management Studies

pp 16, 17 + memo at website

Manufacturing Engineering

pp 15, 17, 18 + memo at website

Mathematics

pp 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18 + memo at website

Medical and Veterinary Sciences

pp 15, 17, 18 + memo at website

Modern and Medieval Languages (MML)

pp 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, 17 + memo at website

Music

pp 6, 8, 11, 16, 17 + memo at website

Natural Sciences

pp 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 18 + memo at website

Philosophy

pp 6, 8, 11, 16, 17 + memo at website

Politics, Psychology, and Sociology

pp 8, 16 + memo at website

Psychological and Behavioural Sciences

pp 15, 17 + memo at website

Theological and Religious Studies

pp 2, 8, 9, 11, 16 + memo at website

Theology for Ministry.

p 16 + memo at website

An analysis of how often “Firsts” and other classes are assigned in Cambridge University exams (Second edition)

Page 2