By Bora Bayram
Many departments saw a significant decline in their mean course marks last year as in-person exams were reintroduced. The results reversed the grade inflation seen during Covid when all departments had online assessments. According to an analysis by The Beaver, departments that primarily had in-person exams, such as Accounting, Economics, and Finance, all saw a decline in grades. Results generally declined below pre-pandemic averages for these departments. On the other hand, departments that had online exams saw little change compared to before the pandemic.
Among departments that had in-person exams, Accounting saw the most dramatic decline; its average mark from 2017 to 2019 saw a mark average of 69.9 compared to 58.8 in the 2021/22 academic year, a massive decline of 11.1 marks. In the same period, Finance saw a decline of 5 marks, while mean marks for Statistics and Economics declined by 3.95 and 1.55 marks respectively.
Overall, the departments that had in-person exams saw their average marks decline by 3.4 when compared to the two years before the pandemic.
In contrast, departments that primarily had online exams this past summer saw little change in their exam results when compared to pre-pandemic averages. The only departments that saw a change of more than 1 mark were Philosophy, which increased by 1.25 marks, and Anthropology, which declined by 1.3 marks. Overall, departments that held online exams saw their average marks increase by 0.3 when compared to results pre-pandemic, essentially staying the same.
The decline in grades is even more dramatic when last year is compared to 2019/20 and 2020/21, when the pandemic was in full swing. Every single department saw a decline of peak grades seen during Covid, regardless of the assessment method. The largest disparity was seen once again in Accounting, which saw a 19.6 mark decline between the Covid peak and last year, followed by Finance with 13.2 and Mathematics with 10.7 mark decline. Departments that stuck with online assessments also saw a decline in the same period, though less dramatic – Management, with a 3.7 point decline from its Covid peak, was the largest disparity in the group.
The summer exam period saw the first in-person exams at LSE since the pandemic started. Many departments were eager to return to traditional assessment methods, while others opted for various combinations of online and in-person exams. Although departments generally made a binary choice between online and in-person exams for most of their courses, many introductory first-year courses were assessed in person, even if the department kept second and third-year courses online. For example, all but one Economic History course was assessed online. EH101, the department’s most popular course, had an in-person exam, reflecting a possible future shift towards in-person assessments in departments that were more willing to retain online exams last summer.
For many students, the shift back to in-person exams has been academically and mentally challenging. Looking at last year’s cohort, only third-year students had sat pre-pandemic A-level and IB exams, while almost all second-years and many first-years had little proximate experience in sitting formal exams as a result of their cancellation due to Covid. Many students reported having a hard time with their mental health during exam season.
This toll on mental health was exemplified by ‘LSE Stressed’, an Instagram page which published over 200 anonymous student confessions. One student wrote: “Exams are causing me so much stress and anxiety … My dept have given basically no support or adjustments to help us with online exams.” While the confessions touched on a range of topics, the impact of exams on mental health was a common theme across many of them.
Maarya Rabbani, Education Officer at LSESU, thinks that although these results are “shocking”, they are not unexpected: “The onset of the pandemic has exacerbated mental health and well-being issues like anxiety and depression, and to expect students to be able to perform well on a test taken in person, without the practice and preparation in the same way, is not a fair ask and will be a huge detriment to their academic trajectory.”
In light of these results, Rabbani thinks that now is the time to scrutinise exam policies for the sake of students and their mental health: “LSE has a responsibility to act on the results we have received and come up with an approach that is more comprehensive in not only combatting how students are coping with [exams] but also something more sustainable to address it in a more holistic way … Part of my role is to challenge LSE to think progressively without the blinders and benchmarks set by our Russell Group neighbours.”
Rabbani says that the traditional approach towards assessments needs to be challenged and that there needs to be more diversity in assessment methods: “If you take a giant leap back and problematize the concept of exams within the UK context, in general, it is still not an adequate metric to test students’ understanding of course material … We kind of see these one-time, one-end of module exams as a litmus test for excellence and I think that so much of that understanding is so old fashioned.”
“By having compassion for students, you’re not lacking rigour,” she says.
She thinks that LSE should start by listening and communicating its decision-marking clearly, “hopefully open[ing] new avenues for student feedback where we can all transparently monitor how LSE has been able to take what students said and do something about it.”
Even though LSE has reversed the trend of grade inflation, which it considered detrimental to its reputation, there are questions that remain about mental health, student feedback, and how receptive management is towards change. Time will tell if students’ views can genuinely make a difference towards how assessments are conducted.
