�ֲ���ý

The profile of undergraduate degree outcomes at �ֲ���ý over a five-year period up to the academic year 2024/25 is given in table 1 and Figure 1. The proportion of 1st and 2:1 degrees combined (hereafter referred to as good degrees) has increased by 1.4% pts between 23/24 and 24/25. The decline in earlier years (21/22 and 22/23) followed sector-wide patterns in which good degrees returned to pre-pandemic levels. 

The improvement in good degrees awarded in 2024/25 was driven by an increase in the award of 1^st class degrees, up 2.0% pts on the previous year; 1^st class degrees do however remain lower than earlier years, with a 13.7% pts decline over the reporting period.  There was no material change in the award of 2:1 degrees in 2024/25, but there was an increase of 3.3% pts over five years.  There was little proportional change in 2:2 degrees awarded in 2024/25, however there was a substantial increase over five years (+8.8% pts).  The award of third class degrees remain low in 2024/25, with no material change on the previous year, and a small 2% pts increase over the five-year period. 

Table 1. Undergraduate degree outcome profile for �ֲ���ý 2021 – 2025

Figure 1. Distribution of undergraduate degree outcomes for �ֲ���ý 2020 – 2024

The proportion of different degree classifications by subjects at Bangor, for 2024/25, is given in Figure 2.  There is some variation in classification between subjects, with the proportion of first class awards ranging from 58.6% for Welsh & Celtic Studies, to 19.4% for Biology.  The proportion of 2:1 degrees ranges from 61.1% for Music, Drama & Performance, to 26.8% for Medical Sciences. 

The proportion of 2:2 awarded is highest in Medical Sciences (39.0%), and lowest in Philosophy & Religion (5.0%). Third class degrees range from 8.3% in Health Sciences (non-HEIW), to 1.1% in Law; many subjects (10 out of 22) did not award any third class degrees.

The range of good degrees awarded also varies.  Welsh & Celtic Studies awarded 100% good degrees, out of a population of 12.  Two subjects awarded over 90%: Philosophy & Religion, and English Literature, Film & Culture.  Four subjects awarded significantly above the University average of 73.0% (>10%): Linguistics & Bilingualism; Music, Drama & Performance; Modern Languages; Social Sciences.  Two subjects awarded significantly below the University average (<10%): medical Sciences; Health Sciences (HEIW).

There is a range of 46.3% 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 consistently attained a higher proportion of good degrees compared with male students, on average 3.9% pts higher, and were generally higher than the university average.  Good degrees awarded to female students in 2024/25 stayed the same as the previous year, whilst good degrees for male students increased by 3.4% pts.  Figure 3 shows the awarding gap was at its widest in 2023/24 (+6.4% pts), narrowing to +3.1% pts in 2024/25.

Figure 3. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by gender: 5 year trend  

2.2 Age

There were significant and consistent differences in proportions of good degrees awarded by age group; good degrees awarded to young students was on average 5.4% pts higher than mature students across the review period.  Young student attainment was consistently higher than university averages, with mature students generally below.  As highlighted by figure 4 however, the awarding gap improved considerably in 2023/24 and closed in 2024/25 with both groups achieving 73%.  Good degrees awarded to mature students improved by 3.7% pts in 2024/25, with young students remaining the same as the previous year.  Positive and substantial progress has been made in improving the outcomes of mature students and narrowing the awarding gap; it is important that this progress continues to be monitored in subsequent years.

Figure 4. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by age: 5 year trend 

2.3 Disability

The awarding gap between students who have reported a disability and those without a disability has generally been narrower than other underrepresented groups (figure 5), with good degrees for disabled students on average 1.7% pts lower.  Good degree outcomes for disabled students improved in 2022/23, resulting in a positive awarding gap, but have fallen thereafter.  Good degrees for students without a disability however have increased recently, with a 2.3% pts increase in 2024/25.  The awarding gap of -3.9% pts in 2024/25 is at its widest over the reporting period.  Good degrees awarded to disabled students is now 2.6% pts below the university average, with non-disabled students 1.3% pts above.

Figure 5. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by disability status: 5 year trend 

2.4 Ethnicity

Figure 6 highlights the substantial and consistent disparity in good degrees awarded to Black, Asian and minority ethnic students, on average 11.6% pts lower than white students over the reporting window.  Good degrees decreased by 1.9% pts for Black, Asian and minority ethnic students in 2024/25, and is now 15.9% lower than white students, the widest awarding gap across the reporting period, and compared to other underrepresented groups. Good degrees awarded to Black, Asian and minority ethnic students have consistently been below university averages, and this has worsened to -14.4% in 2024/25, with good degrees awarded to white students consistently above (+1.5% pts in 2024/25).  The data identify this as a necessary area of focus for the University moving forward.

Figure 6. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by ethnic group: 5 year trend 

2.5 Widening Participation

Good degrees awarded to students from low participation areas (based on POLAR quintiles 1 and 2) have consistently been lower than for students from higher participations areas (based on POLAR quintiles 4 and 5), on average 7.6% pts lower over the reporting period.  There was no material change for low participation students in 2024/25, however there was a 9.2% decline over the five-year period. There was a greater level of decline in good degrees for students from high participation areas however, falling by 14.6% pts over five years, resulting in a narrower awarding gap of -6.1% in 2024/25.  Good degrees for low participation students have consistently fallen below university averages and was 4.1% lower in 2024/25.  Students from high participation areas were consistently higher than university averages, +1.9% in 2024/25.  It is positive to note these improvements, however the data shows that good degrees awarded to students from low participation areas continue to fall below students from high participation areas, and therefore this is identified as a necessary area of focus for the University.

Figure 7. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by widening participation measures: 5 year trend 

2.6 Widening Access

The proportion of good degrees awarded to students from areas of Wales classified as the most deprived (WIMD quintiles 1 and 2) have generally been lower than for students from lower deprivation areas (WIMD quintiles 4 and 5), on average 4.4% pts lower across the review period.  Figure 8 shows some variability in the awarding gap over five years, at its widest (-12.3% pts) in 2021/22.  Good degrees awarded to students from high deprivation areas improved by 5.2% pts in 2024/25, with a decline (-4.3% pts) for students from lower deprivation areas.  Over the reporting period, both groups have declined, however the decrease is greater for those from lower deprivation areas (-4.4% pts) compared to students from higher deprivation areas (-2.6% pts). The gap has closed in 2024/25, with a positive awarding gap emerging for the first time over the reporting period (+0.9%). Good degrees awarded to students from high deprivation areas exceeded the university average in 2024/25 (+1.9% pts), performing better than students from lower deprivation areas (+1.0 above).   These improvements are positive, however the data shows that attainment of students from high deprivation areas of Wales have been inconsistent over the reporting period, and generally below students from low deprivation areas and below university averages; this is therefore identified as a necessary area of focus for the University.

Figure 8. 1^st/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 2024/25 Degree Outcomes Statement are:

1. When HESA data is available, benchmark our good grades.
2. Besides the benchmarking above, continue our intervention work linked to good grades, with monitoring through the Quality Assurance Delivery Group with reporting to the Education and Student Experience Committee.
3. Integrate good grades to report and monitor the University's planning and performance round for 2025/26.
4. Continue the work on reducing award gaps prioritizing older students, BAME students and students from high deprivation areas by:

• ensure that the transition period to university is tailored to meet the needs of each student, for example, by making sure that students from all backgrounds are represented within the peer leadership cohort and that each student has activities tailored to them within the induction process.

• ensure that assessments are inclusive and provide a fair challenge for all students, and to raise and encourage the academic aspirations of all students.

5. incorporate diversification and decolonization of the curriculum to ensure that all students see themselves as someone who is represented within university teaching and are introduced to a range of voices and perspectives.