The profile of undergraduate degree outcomes at ֲý over a five-year period up to the academic year 2023/24 is given in table 1 and Figure 1. The proportion of 1st and 2:1 degrees combined (hereafter referred to as good degrees) has remained constant with 2022/23 at 71.6%. The decline from 2021/22 followed sector-wide patterns in which good degrees awarded returned to pre-pandemic levels.
There were some variations within individual degree classification in 2023/24. First class degrees decreased by 5.9% after a period of stability post-pandemic and are now at their lowest level across the reporting window. 2:1 degrees increased by similar proportions (+5.8% pts) and are now at their highest across the five years.
2:2 degrees awarded are also at their highest level following an increase of 2.0% pts. The award of third class degrees decreased by 1.9% pts following a particularly steep increase the previous year.
| Degree Class | 2019/20 | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | 2022/23 | 2023/24 |
| 1st Class honours | 40.1% | 44.3% | 34.5% | 34.5% | 28.6% |
| Upper second class honours | 40.1% | 39.1% | 42.1% | 37.2% | 43.0% |
| Lower second class honours | 16.6% | 14.5% | 19.9% | 21.8% | 23.8% |
| Third class | 3.1% | 2.1% | 3.4% | 6.5% | 4.6% |
| 1st/2:1 (% | 80.3% | 83.4% | 76.7% | 71.7% | 71.6% |
| 1st/2:1 (n) | 1790 | 1539 | 1401 | 1050 | 1174 |
Table 1. Undergraduate degree outcome profile for ֲý 2020 – 2024
Figure 1. Distribution of undergraduate degree outcomes for ֲý 2020 – 2024
The proportion of different degree classifications by subjects at Bangor, for 2023/24, is given in Figure 2. There is clear variation between subjects, with the proportion of first class awards ranging from 59.4% in Computer Science, to 15.6% in Business. The proportion of 2:1 degrees ranged from 67.1% in Modern Languages, to 26.9% in Electronic Engineering.
The proportion of 2:2 awarded was highest in Medical Sciences (37.9%), and lowest in Music, Drama & Performance (4.2%). Third class awards were highest in Business (13.5%), with 11 subjects awarding no third class degrees.
The range of good degrees awarded also varied, with Music, Drama & Performance awarding the highest proportion at 95.8%, followed by Computer Science with 92.2%.
Seven subjects awarded below the University average of 72%: Business; Medical Sciences; Biology; Health Sciences non-HEIW; Sport, Health & Exercise Sciences; Education non-ITE; and Health Sciences HEIW. There was a range of 47% pts between the highest, and lowest, proportion of good degrees awarded across subjects at ֲý.
Figure 2. Distribution of undergraduate degree outcomes for ֲý 2024, by subject
The University reviews its degree outcomes annually to identify any unexpected trends reflecting the requirements of the .
The University is committed to the targets set out in our Access and Participation Plan including its commitment to provide academic and welfare support to ensure the retention and outcomes of underrepresented groups are comparable to the wider population of students.
As part of this commitment, the University has begun to analyse awarding gaps for students with a range of demographic characteristics. Data in Table 2 relate to all undergraduate students, including international students, with the exception of low participation, which is a UK-specific measure and widening access, which relates to Welsh-domiciled students only.
2.1 Sex
Across the review period, female students attained a higher proportion of good degrees compared with male students, on average 3.3% pts higher, and generally higher than the university average. Good degrees increased by 1.3% pts for female students in 2023/24, with male students lower by 2.2% pts. Figure 3 shows the awarding gap was at its widest in 2023/24, increasing to +6.4% pts. This is the only underrepresented group that has consistently achieved a positive awarding gap.
Figure 3. 1st/2:1 degrees awarded by gender: 5 year trend
2.2 Age
Figure 4 highlights the significant and consistent differences in proportions of good degrees awarded by age group. Mature students were on average 7.6% pts lower than young students across the reporting period and fell below university averages. The increase in mature student good degrees in 2023/24 has however closed the awarding gap, now at its narrowest over five years. The 2023/24 results show positive progress; however, the longer-term pattern indicates that this should continue to be a necessary area of focus for the University.
Figure 4. 1st/2:1 degrees awarded by age: 5 year trend
2.3 Disability
The awarding gap between students with and without a disability is narrower than most underrepresented groups (figure 5); good degrees for disabled students were on average 1% pt lower than non-disabled students and consistently fell below university averages. The decline in 2022/23 in good degrees for non-disabled students resulted in a positive awarding gap for this year, however results improved in 2023/24, and are now 1.5% pts higher than disabled students.
Figure 5. 1st/2:1 degrees awarded by disability status: 5 year trend
2.4 Ethnicity
Figure 6 highlights the significant and consistent disparity in good degrees awarded to Black, Asian and minority ethnic students, on average 10.4% pts lower than white students over the reporting window, and 8.5% pts below the university average. Good degrees for Black, Asian and minority ethnic students have fallen to their lowest in 2023/24, with the awarding gap at its widest over five years, 15.2% pts below white students. The data shows that eliminating this attainment gap is a particularly necessary area of focus for the University moving forward.
Figure 6. 1st/2:1 degrees awarded by ethnic group: 5 year trend
2.5 Widening Participation
Figure 7 indicated a significant and consistent awarding gap between students from low participation areas (based on POLAR quintiles 1 and 2) and higher participations areas (based on POLAR quintiles 4 and 5). Good degrees for low participation students were on average 7.4% lower than for high participation students and were consistently below university averages. There was a small increase in both groups in 2023/24, with no material change in the awarding gap. The data shows that this is identified as a necessary area of focus for the University.
Figure 7. 1st/2:1 degrees awarded by widening participation measures: 5 year trend
2.6 Widening Access
There are variable patterns year-on-year in awarding gaps between students from areas of Wales classified as the most deprived (WIMD quintiles 1 and 2) and those from low deprivation areas (WIMD quintiles 4 and 5). Students from high deprivation areas consistently achieved lower good degrees than those from low deprivation areas and were consistently lower than university averages. The improvements secured in 2022/23 have now fallen back with good degrees for high deprivation students 8.6% lower than those from lower deprivation areas. The data shows that attainment of students from high deprivation areas of Wales is a necessary area of focus for the University.
Figure 8. 1st/2:1 degrees awarded by widening access measures: 5 year trend
Table 2. Undergraduate degree profile, by student demographic groups
The University has in place a set of principles that governs its approach to assessment. These are set out in an Assessment Framework, produced in 2018, which was commended in the University’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Enhancement Review Report (2018). The principles are wide-ranging, encompassing for example assessment design and detailed guidance on assessment weighting and equivalence.
The Assessment Framework is available to staff and students and is intended to ensure that staff and students share common expectations of assessment. The Assessment Framework outlines the expectation that assessment must incrementally reflect the level of study and deliver an appropriate degree of academic challenge to students. Those designing assessments are required to ensure that assessment genuinely measures students’ attainment of the relevant learning outcomes and provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate that attainment to the highest level possible.
All assessments must be mapped to at least one module learning outcome. These are linked to programme learning outcomes and reflect subject benchmark statements where available and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements where relevant. Programme and module learning outcomes are grouped according to the criteria set out in the QAA’s degree outcome classification descriptors including professional competencies where relevant. The linkages of module learning outcomes to programme learning outcomes and subject benchmark statements are made explicit on the programme specification, which is maintained centrally by the Quality Enhancement Unit. Assessment approach and mapping to learning outcomes are considered during module validation.
3.1. Marking, verification and Examination Boards
As set out in the University’s Regulations for Taught Programmes, an External Examiner must approve all questions used in examinations that count towards an award, in order to assess the appropriateness, relevance and level of questions according to their knowledge of sector norms.
Students use marking criteria to understand what they are expected to achieve. The University uses subject-specific marking criteria that reflect the disciplinary and professional context of a programme. Module and assessment specific marking criteria are also made available to all students.
The University’s Regulations for Taught Programmes set out the process for the verification of marks and the purpose of this. Marks for all modules across the University are verified each time they are taught. Each School has procedures to deal with major differences between markers and verifiers and a statement of the verification processes used is agreed by the Board of studies and is considered when a School is Audited by the Quality Enhancement Unit. All Schools provide students with details of the verification procedures.
Marked copies of assessments are kept for the External Examiner, who will make a judgement on the appropriateness of marking practices, which they will report at External Examination Boards and in the written report that is submitted to the Quality Enhancement Unit, and which must be addressed by the school in its planning for the next academic year.
The University uses Assessment Reports on the Quality of University Examinations (ARQUE) summaries as an additional mechanism to compare the marks awarded in different modules within and between years, and to compare the marks students achieve on each module with their performance in other modules. The system, which is maintained by Quality Enhancement Unit staff is primarily used to identify outlying modules at School Boards of Examiners’ Meetings, but also identifies potential differences in student performance by gender. The use of ARQUE is routinely praised by External Examiners, who report that it supports transparent and constructive discussions on marks across modules and assures them that marking is consistent and non-discriminatory.
3.2. External expertise
External expertise is utilized in the initial approval and validation of a degree programme and in annual quality assurance through the external examining process. Initial programme approval considers the assessment strategy in depth, using internal and external subject expertise in all cases. It ensures that teaching and assessment methods are aligned with sector-wide reference points such as , and discipline-specific . Programmes conferring professional recognition or Licence to Practise, such as Nursing or Social Work, must align with the standards of relevant (PSRBs). In these cases, the University supports PSRBs’ close involvement in validation panels and ongoing monitoring. The same procedure is used to approve programmes reviewed through the 5-6 year revalidation cycle.
In addition to approving examination questions and examining marked assessment, External Examiners are requested to provide an annual written report, and oral comments, to the Board of Examiners. The report provides assurance that the standards of assessment and student performance are comparable with the standards of comparable UK HEI courses and align with national frameworks. In the rare instances where External Examiners raise concerns, the Quality Enhancement Unit ensures that Schools address these in full and these cases and responses are considered by the University’s central Teaching and Learning decision-making body.
External Examiners reports are addressed through the University’s annual review process for all modules and programmes. These reviews are completed by module and programme leads and, in addition to External Examiner comments, must address comparative student performance as set out by the ARQUE data, and student feedback (from various sources including module evaluation) together with pedagogically informed self-reflection.
External Examiners are selected, approved and trained in accordance with QAA Guidance on External Expertise.
The University Council must ascertain that the University meets all standards set out in the Quality Assessment Framework for Wales. The Council is tasked with approving annual quality statements, which include assuring that: “The standards of awards for which we are responsible have been appropriately set and maintained”. An annual Quality Assurance Report helps satisfy the Council that the University continues to meet national expectations and regulatory requirements for degree standards.
As set out in the University’s Charter, Senate is the “academic authority” of the University, responsible for “academic work”. Senate is the ruling body on academic (but not managerial) matters and is responsible for all academic issues affecting the University.
The University Teaching and Learning Strategy Group is delegated by Senate to oversee the implementation of the Quality Assurance mechanisms set out above and considers issues relating to degree outcomes, student performance and degree classifications arising from ongoing internal and external review.
School Boards of Studies and Award Boards (that are sub-groups of Boards of Studies) are responsible for the quality of their awards and are subject to University regulations. Award Boards are attended by Quality Assurance officers in the year prior to Internal Quality Audits to verify that practices are being followed and External Examiners are also required to confirm that these Boards follow University regulations.
The Quality Enhancement Group, which is a sub-group of The University Teaching and Learning Strategy Group, considers annual Programme Level reviews. This group, chaired by the PVC for L&T, including College Directors of Teaching and Learning and Quality Assurance representation, reflects on issues raised, best practice, trends across the University, enhancement opportunities and training needs.
All taught programmes are revalidated on a cyclical 5-6 year basis, usually as part of a school-wide validation of taught programmes. Concerns regarding the quality of teaching and assessment may trigger a validation outside the usual cycle.
The University uses a single algorithm to determine degree classifications for Bachelor’s (Honours) Degrees. The calculation involves adding the overall percentage for year two modules to the overall percentage for year three modules with year the second average having double weighting: [L5 + (L6 x 2). For extended undergraduate degrees, the algorithm is [(0.4 x L6) + (0.6 x L7)], however, if approved at validation the year two (L5) modules may also be included as follows: [L5 + (2 x L6) + (3 x L7)]/6.
Enabling our students to achieve the very best degree that they can is at the heart of ֲý’s ethos and is set out in the University’s Teaching and Learning Strategy. A number of University-led enhancements to teaching and learning and student support have had an overall positive effect on degree outcomes at Bangor over the review period. These institutional-level actions dovetail with school and subject-level activities.
The University’s Centre for Enhancement in Learning and Teaching (CELT) has been a focus for innovation, enhancement and support in all aspects of teaching and learning.
- CELT provides ongoing Continual Professional Development for academic staff across the University.
- CELT supports staff in achieving formal qualifications in higher education teaching via the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education and HEA Fellowship Scheme. During the period covered by this statement, there has been an upward trend in the success rate of application by staff for HEA Fellowships.
- CELT staff have been at the forefront of enhancement projects for teaching and learning in the University. Key enhancement themes include student retention, curriculum design, assessment and feedback.
- Work on assessment and feedback has resulted in Bangor’s metric scores for the NSS on this topic being above the sector benchmark during the review period.
- Work on student retention has seen the University develop engagement dashboards, as part of continuing work to integrate learner analytics into academic and pastoral support for students.
- As part of enhancement work on assessment and feedback, the University has overhauled its processes for students undertaking supplementary assessment.
Bangor has been at the forefront of embedding the principle of co-production within curriculum design, validation and review. In addition, the University takes an evidence and data-led approach to decisions around curriculum design and review, utilizing a range of qualitative and quantitative datasets.
The University has adopted the use of lecture capture software as a tool to support student learning and has developed a ‘Panopto Policy’ to provide a guiding framework for its use. In addition. the University has continued to invest in teaching facilities (including laboratory and performance facilities), library services, social learning facilities and learning technology.
Key actions arising from the 2023/24 Degree Outcomes Statement are:
- When the HESA data is available, benchmark our decrease in good degrees.
- Irrespective of the above benchmarking, given the 47% difference in the proportion of good degrees across the Institution, review Schools’ “Degree Classification” action plans with a specific focus on the 7 subject areas below the University’s average to establish that:
- the action plans are fit for purpose and actions being delivered.
- degree classification profiles are being meaningfully considered as part of Annual Review Process.
This review and monitoring will take place through the Quality Assurance Delivery Group with reporting to the Education and Student Experience Committee.
3. Evaluate if there has been an improved focus and quality of the annual review of programmes through the Quality Assurance Delivery Group with reporting to the Education and Student Experience Committee.
4. Continue are work on decreasing awarding gaps with prioritisation of mature students, BAME students and students from high deprivation areas by:
- ensuring that the transition to university is tailored to meet the needs of all students, for example, by making sure that students of all backgrounds are represented within the peer guide cohort and that all students have activities tailored to them within the induction process.
- ensuring that assessments are inclusive and provide equitable challenge for all students, and to raise and encourage all students’ academic aspirations.
- embedding diversify and decolonise the curriculum to ensure all students see themselves as being represented within the university’s teaching and are introduced to a range of voices and perspectives.
- embedding diversify and decolonise the curriculum to ensure all students see themselves as being represented within the university’s teaching and are introduced to a range of voices and perspectives.