The regulatory authorities have concerns….

With proposed changes to TEF and increasing scrutiny from the Office for Students, degree classification algorithms are moving from academic regulations to strategic boardroom discussions. Karen Stephenson and Katharine Brymer explore what is changing, why it matters, and the challenges university leaders may soon face.

Posted by Karen Stephenson on 26th June, 2026

The concerns are focused on ‘Teaching Quality’ and what is often referred to as grade inflation. The percentages of students in receipt of 1^st and 2:1 degree classifications.

Degree Classification

Throughout the 1970’s first class degrees were awarded to around 7% of graduates.[1] The situation continued and in 1996 7% of graduates received a first class award.[2] This rose to just under 16% by 2010-11 and nearly twenty nine per cent (28.8%) in the academic year 2023-24.[3] The mechanism underlying this growth will be discussed, however it appears to be a self-evident cause for concern.

TEF Revisited

The importance of the TEF, if current proposals are adopted, is set to rise and to do so within the context of greater rigour. Those HEI’s which achieve a Gold Award will be reassessed every five years, those with a Silver every four years and Bronze every three years. In addition, those in receipt of a Bronze Award will have their student numbers restricted until a higher quality has been achieved.[4]

Also of concern to HEI’s is likely to be the ‘rule-based’ approach for determining the overall rating for individual providers. The “clearest ‘rule’ would be that a providers overall rating would be the same as its lower aspect rating.”[5] (Proposal 4, para 75). This would mean, for example, an institution could receive the following assessments under the ‘B’ Conditions: B1 Academic Experience Gold, B2 Resources and Support Bronze, B3 Student Outcomes Gold, B4 Assessment and Awards Gold, B5 Standards Gold. Under the proposals this institution would receive a Bronze Award and have its recruitment going forward restricted.

Assessment – A conundrum

It may be a jarring reality, but nevertheless a reality that “there is no standardised national system with minor variations.”[6] The different approaches however do fall into broad categories which are driven by different philosophical approaches.

The Russell Group (and a few others) adopt the principle that a “degree classification should reflect the totality of your assessed work at higher levels”.[7] In short a weighted average includes all modules/units at Levels 5 and 6 (sometimes Level 4). Alternatively, most post-1992 HEIs hold the view that a “degree classification should represent your actual capability through your best work”.[8] Both approaches have merit, both are rational and defensible. However, both generate different outcomes and under the existing system both exist under what is considered to be a unified national framework.[9]

The complexity which predominates within the post-1992s

The so called ‘grade inflation’ has been facilitated by a number of different approaches to calculating degree classifications. All of these mechanisms rely on algorithms and all pull degree awards in an upward direction.

Discounting / Best Credit Selection

This method allows students to drop their worst performances and is prominent among the post-1992s. The rationale here is that one difficult module or semester should not blight an entire degree programme of study. This “automatically excludes (‘discounts’) credits with the lowest marks from the calculation…… excluding only the worst performance of a student when determining their final degree classification is particularly concerning because of the inherently inflationary impact this will have on the overall marks achieved by students.”[10]

Multiple calculation routes

Several HEIs calculate degree classifications in a number of different ways. For example the best 100 credits at Level 6 or the best 100 credits at Level 5 and 6 with a 20:80 weighting. Whichever provides the higher classification is selected for that individual student.

Borderline uplift rules

There are examples of HEIs that automatically uplift individual students to higher degree classifications.[11]

Exit acceleration

“Heavy final-year weighting amplifies improvement while minimising early difficulties. Where deployed, the near-universal pattern is now 25 to 30 per cent for Level 5 and 70 to 75 per cent for Level 6. Some institutions weight even more heavily, with year three counting for 60 per cent of the final mark.”

First year exclusion

Excluding first year results from calculations which form the basis of a degree classification is approaching ubiquitous. If this is combined with other approaches described above, the net effect is one of compounding the upward pressure on classifications.[12]

A helicopter view of the sector reveals that the Russell Group broadly adheres to the ‘totality of work’ ethos of assessment where all credits are counted and the calculation method is singular. In contrast and to quote from a WONKHE article published last year: ‘Algorithms aren’t the problem. It is the classification system they support’– “best-credit selection appears at roughly 70 per cent at post-92s. Multiple calculation routes appear at around 40 per cent of post-92s…” No Russell Group universities do this.[13]

Conclusion

The OfS thinking on the future award of TEF classifications is presented in the form of a consultation and has been articulated above under the ‘TEF Revisited’ paragraph. The issue of so called grade inflation has been considered under ‘Assessment – A conundrum’ above. A review of the documentation suggests that the issues of ‘Exit acceleration’, ‘Borderline uplifts’ and ‘First year exclusion’ may escape regulatory focus.

This may be because a transparency exists with weightings published in HEI regulations. These may be influenced by PSRB regulations. In addition these are often embedded, long standing practices linked to approaches to teaching and learning.
Similarly the OfS does not appear to be targeting systemic borderline uplifting. This may be because there is a long tradition of institutional discretion in this area. There is a case that academic judgement is core to the sectors independence.
The discounting or removal of first year marks from final degree classifications is widespread and has been established for twenty years. Viewed as a positive derived from institutional autonomy, there is perhaps a view that ‘battles’ need to be chosen carefully.

The OfS appears to intend to focus its attention on the issues of ‘Discounting’ or ‘Best Credit Selection’ and ‘Multiple Calculation Routes’. The OfS report ‘Bachelors’ Degree Classification Algorithms’ identifies Condition B4.2.C “academic regulations are designed to ensure that relevant awards are credible”.[14] “…..excluding only the worst performance of a student when determining their final degree classification is particularly concerning because of the inherently inflationary impact this will have on the overall marks achieved by students.”[15] The OfS is crisp and clear about Multiple Calculation routes. Again the ‘Bachelors Degree Classification Algorithms’ report from November 2025 “…the classification awarded should not simply be the most favourable result…”[16]

A combination of the revisited approach to TEF classification and the intervention in degree algorithms present HE managers with additional reefs to navigate. Yes there are legitimate alternative philosophical positions from which different approaches to assessment are derived. However it would be naïve to suggest that the impact of degree classifications on League Table positions and HEI marketing are not important considerations. Things are changing for those managing universities and life is not going to get any easier.

“And it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard

It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall”

A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall – Bob Dylan 1963

[1] https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/31826/1/A-Degree-of-Uncertainty-final.pdf

[2] https://www.hesa.ac.uk/files/Return-to-degree-by-class-20200310.pdf

[3] https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/press-and-media/proportion-of-first-class-degrees-falls-for-third-consecutive-year/

[4] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/student-number-limits-bronze-providers-under-tef-changes

[5] https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/reforms-to-quality-regulation/consultation-on-the-future-approach-to-quality-regulation/

[6] https://wonkhe.com/blogs/algorithms-arent-the-problem-its-the-classification-system-they-support/

[7] https://wonkhe.com/blogs/algorithms-arent-the-problem-its-the-classification-system-they-support/

[8] https://wonkhe.com/blogs/algorithms-arent-the-problem-its-the-classification-system-they-support/

[9] https://wonkhe.com/blogs/algorithms-arent-the-problem-its-the-classification-system-they-support/