‘Discretion’ should have no place in determining degree classifications

Blatant use of grade inflation - if measurement error is the argument, then you should also use 'discretion' to downgrade borderline marks to a LOWER degree classification. Engaging in only upward adjustment by discretion is a grade inflation practice, plain and simple.

As well as avoiding discretion, it's also important that degree algorithms are simple, understandable and transparent. Too often they are so complex that it's hard for students to understand - and difficult for academics too. I've seen systems that can (occasionally) give rise to anomalies whereby a lower grade in a course actually improves the overall outcome. If discretion is allowed then there need to be well-defined principles by which it is exercised. However it's difficult for these to be implemented consistently across a whole university. But why not be straightforward and avoid discretion altogether?

Exit velocity should be taken into account, I believe. For many state school pupils, it takes a good year and a half to get their head round a subject and what is required to secure good grades. Generally, private school pupils enter university at a higher level but things level out as the course continues. My sister, for example, was regularly banging out 73+ essays in her final year but a slow start in year two (classification was based on average of marks over final two years), not helped by some hopeless tutors that year, meant it was too late to make up the ground required for a First. You wouldn't, for instance, discriminate against a Grade 8 violinist because they happened to be at grade 5 a year earlier.

What a depressing article that makes me glad that I am near retirement. Much of life is about factors that may not be reduced purely to numbers. If academic discretion and the benefit of experience are removed, students may as well stay online and be taught by robots.

I largely agree with the author here: although retaining academic discretion is generally desirable, most sensible board chairs will avoid using these powers if at all possible. There is one additional point hinted at in the article but not fully brought out: if any of these principles end up being used as overt criteria for board members (as I have experience of seeing), there is no excuse for not informing students that these are criteria in advance. I imagine that any appeal that obtains board minutes and sees this happening would necessarily be successful, and might invalidate all the results decided within that board.

I agree with the sentiment of the article and would suggest that potential reasons for justifying a higher grade through discretionary judgments, such as exit velocity or consistency of performance, are possible to incorporate into the algorithm. Many universities already have these concepts detailed within their regulations. It's completely transparent (although we could do more to help students understand the permutations) and far less open to obvious pitfalls such as bias. The author will also be aware that there is substantial sector discussion on degree algorithms as a guard against potential grade inflation, with a trend working against any form of borderline range.