Pure humbug from beginning to end

Shortly after I began teaching in University of Tampere, and the time came for me to set my first exam paper, I asked some colleagues to explain to me to whom I should submit the questions, by what date, with what accompanying documentation, and what were the formalities for marking and assessment. All of those whom I asked were completely nonplussed by these questions. The only answer seemed to be that I should submit the paper to the students on the day, and then grade the answers as I saw fit: ‘You’re the professor, it’s just up to you’.

Coming from the British university culture this was quite a shock. I have to confess that initially I was rather pleased at this easy and non-bureaucratic system, only later coming to understand its academic deficiencies. In a word, the assessment methods that operate in the Finnish universities are unprofessional. Yet all my suggestions for improving them, mainly by importing elements of the British experience, have raised only eyebrows and suspicion. What everyone seems to fear is that we will be forced into compliance with a whole new set of regulations and reporting procedures determined by the ministry, yet devoid of academic value. Or worse, rules which actually run counter to academic principles because they have been devised by an administrator who knows nothing about teaching or scholarship, nor anything of substance about what is actually being taught in our universities. It is very easy to understand such fears, given the encroachment of state- or Brussels-derived bureaucracy on so many other aspects of university life, such as research grant management, chemical and biological safety, the performance-related salary system and so on.

Of course, I share those fears. Still, we need to devise non-bureaucratic and non-inquisitorial methods to professionalize not only our assessment of students, but a whole raft of other aspects of university teaching. This is essential if we are to raise standards to international levels and deliver value for money, both for society as a whole and, most importantly, for ourselves, as scholars and scientists.

Our main aim should be to decrease substantially the time taken for students to graduate, whilst raising the bar for what we expect a graduate to know, especially in terms of depth. We need to free up university staff time for more useful activities than setting endless exams for students who will never really pass, other than by a statistical fluke.

The first reform I would seek would be for all degree courses in Finland to be strictly time-limited. A bachelor’s degree under the Bologna system should take maximally 3 years, meaning 3 academic years plus whatever additional summer study period is needed for the student to get a second and final chance to pass courses from the study-year in question. If he/she fails a second time then that’s the end of their degree; the only get-out I might entertain would be that they could repeat the whole year once only, if they, their parents or their bankers were prepared to pay a fee covering the full economic cost of the extra year of study, with absolutely no guarantee they would pass the course next time around. They would still need to achieve the required academic standard in the final exams.

For the master’s degree I would be similarly stringent. Students should have just two calendar years to pass all the coursework and then submit a masters thesis that meets certain basic criteria, whatever its actual academic merits. Failure to do so should entail a financial penalty, for which the student would be obliged to sign a prior contract or even pay a forfeitable deposit. If a satisfactory thesis is not submitted within a further 3 or 6 months then the degree should be automatically failed in its entirety, and the student required to start again from zero, and pay full cost fees, in order to take a second masters degree course in Finland.

Limiting the time spent on degree education is not merely essential for the universities to make better and more efficient use of their resources. It is also vital if we are to propel young Finns into productive working life early enough to pay for the increasing burden of caring for the elderly. And, of course, it is also a step towards gender equality, since it means women will graduate well before being faced with the choice between career or family, and can more realistically choose both. To assist in this I would also sweep away all university entrance exams, except for foreign applicants. We have the best high schools in the world, so high school grades are a quite sufficient basis on which to select students for university. Entrance exams are, literally, a waste of time.

To limit the breadth of courses taken and ensure that a satisfactory depth is achieved, I would assign every student an advisor of studies from amongst the academic staff, who would be required to guide and approve their study plan each year, in advance, in particular if it deviated from the norms set by the given school or faculty. This is obviously of critical importance in the ‘hard’ sciences, where foundation knowledge is essential for taking more advanced courses, even if it is perceived by the students as difficult or indigestible. But in every discipline we should be trying to avoid the all-too-common outcome that the degree is just a jumbled pile of course modules that do not add up to a coherent body of knowledge or understanding of anything in particular.

To professionalize assessment, I would import the British external examiner system more or less verbatim. To those unfamiliar with how this works, it is essentially a non-bureaucratic system of peer-review. It is non-bureaucratic because it operates generally with no set formula or paperwork. It is peer-review because each faculty selects an esteemed academic from within its own field, based in another university (which could be in Finland or anywhere). His or her duties are to scrutinize all exam papers set in the degree course for which he/she is appointed - typically for a 3 or 4 year term, with an inbuilt right to see and evaluate any of the faculty’s teaching materials and course documentation, then sample the marked exam scripts to ascertain whether the standards being applied are in accordance with the norm for the given discipline. In the UK, where degrees are typically assessed by a single final grade, it is customary for the external examiner also to interview a sample of the final-year students, especially those whose marks fall near to grade borderlines, and make specific recommendations as to where the numerical grade boundaries should be set, often impacting on the final grade achieved by individual students.

Finally, I would start to apportion state funding to universities according to the quality of teaching rather than just the number of degrees awarded. At bachelor level this could be done based on the grades achieved by the students, if validated by an external examiner. At masters level the actual content and quality of masters theses would be the best guide, and these should be assessed by expert peer-review, the outcome determining not only the individual student’s grading but that of the school or faculty in which the degree has been taken. We are already well used to evaluation of students, of individual staff performance, of project grant applications, and of manuscripts submitted for publication; why should teaching be any different?

To guard against any such suggestions being taken up and totally ruined by an eager government official or by the next-but-one minister of education slithering up the greasy pole of politics, I feel it is vital that we implement these reforms ourselves. My vision of how to professionalize the delivery of university education in Finland, and thereby propel us into the top international league where we belong, is for us academics to seize the moment and enact reforms based on respect for academic autonomy and aspiration to the highest scholastic values, with absolutely minimal administration. Otherwise our system will remain worthy of Wilde’s scornful epithet: pure humbug from beginning to end.