EPC subject level TEF consultation: duration
A longer duration and re-application period is proposed in subject level TEF
Further information can be found on Pp.11-12 of the consultation document. Based on your experiences on the ground, the EPC would like to offer member university scenarios to demonstrate the impact and/or unintended consequences. Please provide any evidence or supporting information you have in relation to the following statements.
Five-year Engineering accreditation cycles which renew, say the year after a five or six-year TEF cycle, could potentially equate to nearly a decade gap before a particular course could be fully updated in terms of accreditation and TEF rating. This is particularly damaging given the rapid pace of change in engineering technologies.
A longer duration and re-application period could mean in practical terms there would be no way for potential students to know that the data used for the rating reflected an issue since addressed.Conversely, a poor-performing subject (in a grouping with high-performing subjects and so deemed perhaps ‘silver’) could keep running ‘silver’ rated courses for five or six years.
Alternatively, a subject could have reached a gold standard due to the efforts and achievement of a particular academic or academic team who then leave that provider, leaving the provider with five years of a gold rating.
Some providers may reapply as frequently as possible in order to obtain a higher rating: either if they believe their current rating does not properly reflect the quality of particular subjects, especially if there may have been material changes to the courses in question OR because they are engaging in game-playing or manipulation where they reapply as frequently as possible in order to obtain a higher rating.
Any other comments on duration of award within subject level TEF?