News

Bar students are getting even worse at ethics, official report shows

By on
58

If four-year trend continues, more than half of those on the BPTC are likely to fail ethics module at first go next year

Head in Hands

Bar students have continued to slide into a pit of unethical despair, figures from the body monitoring vocational course pass rates show.

The overall pass rate for the ethics module on the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) tumbled again last year — down to less than 57% from 65.5% the previous year.

Even more dramatic is the change over the last four years. In 2011-12, 85% of bar students managed to tell right from wrong at the first time of asking. But if the current trend continues, next year could see more than half of wannabe barristers having to re-sit the exam.

The depressing figures were revealed in this year’s report from the chairman to the Bar Standards Board’s central examinations board.

The official figures came just a month after hundreds of BPP Law School wannabe barristers unexpectedly failed the BPTC ethics module. At the time, both students and at least one senior BPTC academic claimed the exam questions were worded confusingly.

But the latest annual report also exposed disturbing figures regarding the ability of bar students to get their heads round other subjects crucial to the business of being a barrister.

Eight institutions offer the BPTC from 11 outposts across England and Wales. Of those 11, nine reported significantly drops in the pass rate on the criminal litigation module. Indeed, one unidentified institution — the report does not name and shame — saw its criminal litigation pass rate tumble by nearly 30%.

First sit changes in provider pass rate 2013/14 vs 2014/15

table

Crime and ethics were not the only concerns. The BPTC institutions produced marginally better results in relation to civil litigation pass rates — but nonetheless, five of the 11 still reported percentage drops varying from about 12% down to 1%.

In the report, the BSB highlighted students’ poor knowledge of criminal law across nine of 11 centres. “The decline across nine providers in the performance in criminal litigation is disappointing,” it said with delicate understatement.

Reacting to the chairman’s report, a BSB spokesperson pointed out that “this is the first year the professional ethics examination has been based on the new handbook”. While the Bar Council, which represents the profession, declined to comment on the plunging pass rates.

Read the report in full below:

Central Examination Board Report August 2015

Previously

Official survey: bar students are rubbish at ethics [Legal Cheek]

58 Comments

Anonymous

Good. For years the BPTC has been a meaningless cash generator for institutions. If it is getting harder, perhaps only those likely to succeed at the Bar will take the course.

(4)(9)

Anonymous

That might be true if the BPTC was a well designed course which actually tested the skills required of a barrister. It isn’t and it doesn’t.

(44)(1)

Anonymous

Perhaps such an assessment of capability should be made before students part with the best part of £20k.

(9)(0)

Inaccurate

You’ve misquoted the stats: it was 59% last year, not 65%.

(2)(3)

Anonymous

It would be interesting to see whether barristers who practise and didn’t have to take the BPTC would be able to pass it….

The ethics paper was written appallingly this year. Yes it was the first year of the new Handbook, but more guidance should have been given as well as practice papers so students could have had more of a chance of trying to comprehend what the BSB is looking for in their answers!

(14)(1)

Anonymous

People (in the LC comments) keep complaining about the exam being badly written or ambiguous, but no one has cited any examples. I did the exam this year and didn’t notice any ambiguity. I’m willing to be persuaded that there was some, but not by people just repeating the assertion with nothing backing it up.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

I also took the exam this year (and got an Outstanding, so I’m not just bitter) and I thought the question about the former member of chambers on a jury who you knew had been involved in something dodgy but weren’t told what, was a rather ambiguous.

I ended up being very equivocal in my answer to that question because the correct answer seemed to hinge on factors which weren’t given in much detail in the question. I was very nervous about how I’d done on the whole paper because I found myself being quite equivocal throughout, which we’d be told not to do.

Without seeing the mark scheme though it’s quite difficult to tell what the correct answer was, and how well the paper was written.

(5)(1)

Anonymous

I spoke to one of my old BPTC tutors (I was 2013-14, so didn’t sit the paper in question) who said that the jury question was the one which tripped people up.

Apparently a number of students focused on whether or not the juror/your fellow member of chambers ought to be reported for the alleged misdemeanour, when in fact the mark scheme wanted people to deal with the conflict of interest of having a juror known to counsel.

If people went down the route of dealing with the barrister’s misconduct then they were awarded limited marks for that SAQ.

I will add that this discussion was in the pub and I can’t promise that I have remembered the details entirely accurately.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Eh sorry if I’m being thick – but what precisely was the ambiguity? The question stated that a barrister who had left your chambers ‘under a cloud’ turned up in the jury, and you were supposed to say what you would do, right? By ambiguity, do you mean that the question didn’t make clear whether or not the juror had in fact done something bad? To me, that was not ambiguity in the question, but I presumed the question was deliberately asking about scenario in which you don’t know all the facts (because there is obviously more to discuss there than if the barrister had been disbarred or something). Unless there was some other ambiguity in the question? I did think that the use of the phrase ‘under a cloud’ might have been a bit confusing for international students, but then again the presumption is fluency in English.

(0)(0)

shirley

many practising barristers would be able to pass with 24 hours’ notice.

The course isn’t a complete waste as it’s your job to be able to prep fast and accurately.

I’m amazed at the percentage of people who fail. Presumably, that’s because they haven’t given themselves the time to pass.

Otherwise, there are a number of seriously deluded students out there.

(0)(1)

Not Amused

This is a spurious and easy argument. The course clearly is a test. For far too many years it was a far too easy test. Moves have been made to make it more difficult – that is a good thing.

Does it test the skills needed to be a barrister? Who can possibly know? It is certainly designed to test some of the skills that a committee thinks a barrister needs. It’s not obviously ridiculous – it’s not judging your pottery skills or ability to perform dentistry.

Whatever it tests and how closely aligned that is to what each of us, subjectively, thinks a barrister needs is irrelevant. It is a test. Some people fail it. I expect those who want to become barristers to be able to pass it.

My fear is that through re-sits and through use of tests which you must practice to pass that the course becomes ‘pay to pass’. That must be avoided to protect those unable to pay. But anyone who fails an academic test and then tries to explain away that failure by saying “oh don’t worry, it wasn’t testing important skills” is only fooling themselves. Clients expect barristers to pass academic tests – a level geography isn’t a core skills at the Bar but if you fail it then the failure matters.

(9)(8)

Anonymous

If the exam is poorly written then one’s mark is a matter of luck. If students who otherwise excel on the BPTC fail the ethics module, that suggests a problem with the module, not the students.

(7)(2)

Not Amused

‘if’

(2)(1)

Anonymous

You can’t be ignorant of this story, frequenting Legal Cheek as often as you do. We know that otherwise strong students struggled on or failed the paper this year. We also know that there was widespread criticism of the questions set, including from academic staff.

(4)(1)

Not Amused

I’ve not really been presented with any evidence. Just self interested voices.

What I do know is that there are too many people taking the course. Often those people have very poor academic ability (they still let 2:2s on the course). The providers have a vested interest in making the course as easy as possible. MCQs are still used – which is fundamentally embarrassing. The BSB has no previous record of competence and no demonstrable ability to make the exams tough. Far too many people still pass.

I would, as someone wisely said above, much prefer it is candidates were weeded out before they spent nearly £20,000. But the BSB has refused to do this. If in the alternative people fail and that puts the next generation off then that is a mild improvement (except when the rich idiot isn’t put off but the poor bright kid is – but for that I blame the BSB).

It doesn’t really matter how like a memory test it is. How distant from the realities of practice. How formulaic. How it just tests what you’re taught. People who are good enough to be barristers should still pass.

I passed and I condemn the course. Failing and calling for the course to be made easier is just not on in my view. The last thing anyone needs is an easier BPTC.

(5)(5)

Proper journalism

I passed the ethics module with an Outstanding, so no “self interested” voices here. I presented evidence below, and fully support a lot of the criticisms of the BPTC and ethics exam which are being commented. Also, I hold law degrees from Cambridge and Oxford – no 2.2 degree, international student (two oft-quoted (lazy and offensive) insults thrown around in response any time students complain). The ethics paper was poor, and the examination methodology very outdated. I would love for you to try and sit the BPTC core module exams and see what you get.

(7)(5)

Jude

I’m in broadly the same situation as you (academic background and results) and totally reserve the right to badmouth the CEB exams. I passed through memorising the entire code and the guidance, writing very quickly and presenting numerous alternative takes on the ethical problem in hand.

I felt that the teaching standard was poor at most providers (from what friends had told me), there was very little in terms of mock exams from which to revise/practise, and in general it is a poor way to judge individuals’ ethics. Clearly, you do not need to be an ethical person to memorise a set of rule, and neither will doing so make you one.

Similarly, the CEB Civ/Crim exams are not a good test of understanding those rules. IMHO, it would be better to have a copy of (e.g.) the White Book in the exam, and have more complicated factual problems to tackle, possibly with negative marking. This would (slightly) more closely represent applying the law to facts.

I am somewhat in agreement with ‘Not Amused’, yes it is a memory test, and yes we do need to have good memories (and be wily enough to figure out how to beat a poor exam board!) but having passed various undergraduate and postgraduate courses, that should be a given… if intake requirements are sufficiently rigid.

Less time spent memorising the CPR etc would be more time for advocacy practice, mooting, pro bono work etc. I wasted a good 4 weeks learning the contents of a book I never intend to be without! (Love you WB)

(9)(0)

Anonymous

That £20k comment was also me actually, so thanks. I don’t disagree that the Bar course providers are letting in too many people who don’t have the academic credentials to find work. I’m sure that that is impacting on pass rates. But to use that fact to dismiss out of hand the comments from a cohort with a freakishly high fail rate in a single exam is to prejudge the situation I think.

On a separate note, it’s a shame that some on here are treating the course as an admissions test. That is not its primary purpose. Clue’s in the name.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Do not make general comments. I got a 2.2 and passed the bar with a very competent( with very competent in 11 out of the 12 subjects including all the BSB exams) . Therefore, first class or 2.1 does not make a person a better barrister than one with 2.2.

(6)(2)

Anonymous

Unfortunately neither does passing the BPTC. Now when you tell us about your pupillage success, we’ll know that a 2.2 truly didn’t hold you back.

(3)(1)

shirley

there is a difference between academic study (even academic legal study) and the vocational courses.

a huge difference.

Some bright people struggle.

Pitiable when the lecturers spoon-feed you exactly what you need to pass.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Agreed. The most important thing for a barrister is basic competence. Bells, whistles and brilliance can flow from there. While the extent to which the BPTC establishes competence in an individual is debatable (and the cost is very high), it can’t seriously be denied that the course goes at least some way in assisting. Additionally, it is not like it is doctoral level physics – passing the assessments should be within the wit of those sufficiently competent to go on and practice at the Bar.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

As above, if the questions set are ambiguous then passing the exam is not merely a matter of competence.

(2)(1)

Anon

Then how did other people (around half) manage it?

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Something about monkeys and typewriters.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

No idea, and I haven’t sat the paper so my point was a more general one. However, in practice ethics questions are not generally binary in nature – it may be that a bit of common sense goes a long way. That said, the paper may simply have been a complete monkey’s breakfast.

(1)(0)

Proper journalism

Ethics pass rate gone from 84.9% (2012),86.4% (2013), 59.6% (2014), to 56.7% (2015). Students less ethical, or drop corresponds to new code? Or teaching worse? Or exams getting much harder?

Interesting that 91.5% passed multiple choice section in ethics, but only 58% passed short answer questions. This disparity is greater than for the other papers. Were the SAQs set fairly- were the student and teacher complaints about ambiguous and poorly worded questions right? Was the mark scheme as rigid and unfair as complained of? Why such a great disparity?

No examiner interventions for any ethics question (in stark contrast to civil and criminal). Complaints listened to? Ethics examiner more rigid and less fair than other ones for the other papers?

8.8% of candidates achieved outstanding in ethics compared to 13% in Civil, & 17.5% in Criminal. Suggests even top end found ethics harder?

No attention given to lack of good ethics resources or teaching. Are students really getting that much less ethical- 30% less?! Why has a new code no assisted? Too vague to be pointless?

One should not forget the effects of failing a paper- fail the whole course and probably cannot take up pupillage that year as resist results out in November.

Why are providers anonymous? Last year chief examiners said would be named and shamed! Why bsb?

(19)(0)

Proper journalism

Also remember that students have to pass both sections of the exam (saw and mcq) to pass the paper. So mcq good performance does not offset performance. Also a pass mark is 60%. Is it not terrifying that 43% of an entire cohort of thousands of students cannot get 60% in ethics (something very important for the bar!)- somewhere along the line something massive has gone wrong. And it can’t ALL be blamed on the students themselves?! When paying out so much money and so much time and effort to become barristers surely it is the argument that it’s students betting worse which is “spurious” and red herring. No bsb blame????? No provider blame???? No examiner blame???? Oh no, all students. Let’s have a hard look at this with some proper answers from the bsb not the poor and brief report response from them.

(10)(0)

Anonymous

Having taken and failed the Professional Ethics exam in question myself (despite getting 70% overall for the exam), I did not think the exam or the marking was fair, at least for SAQs 2 and 3 anyway which most considered to be ambiguous/unclear.

Before anyone who did not sit the actual exam makes any suggestion or comment about ability, nationality, teaching, standard of student… etc, consider the following:

1. Everyone had a copy/access to the BSB Handbook which the exam is based on, therefore however bad the teaching might have been, the basis of the content/info for the exam is the same for everyone.

2. To understand better why students were furious, the breakdown of my March 2015 Professional Ethics results:
MQC 90%,
SAQ 1: 8/10,
SAQ 2: 4/10,
SAQ 3: 3/10.
I would say I have the broad knowledge, understanding (90% in MCQ) and the application (8/10 in SAQ 1) of Ethics. But for SAQ 2 and 3…

3. One classmate got a big fat 0 for SAQ 3, despite having actually attempted the question in question… Hard to see how this is possible when simply writing down 1 (relevant) of the 10 core duties would have scored him at least 1 mark.

4. Not just weak students failed this Ethics exam, many students with VC/O in civil and criminal were shocked to discover they’d failed PE.

5. A-level results are on the up year after year, surely it means students are more clever, it follows if BPTC pass rate is down, it can only mean the Bar exams are unfairly hard (or that A-level is a sham and meaningless) … Duh…

PS,
You cannot Pay to Pass; only one re-sit is allowed, failing the resit you cannot pass BPTC.
(admittedly, you can pay for the whole BPTC course again, but what advantage does this give anyone really? Past-papers are just as useful and cheaper).

In any case, If you can pass on the 5th re-take, you should and could have studied harder and pass the first time.

(3)(2)

Anonymous

“SAQs 2 and 3 …which most considered to be ambiguous/unclear.” Genuine question – what is the ambiguity?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

“Having taken and failed the Professional Ethics exam in question myself (despite getting 70% overall for the exam),”

Personally how the bloody hell does it make sense to get 70% overall for an exam but fail one section? Also I imagine that this means the person in question failed the paper? This kind of stuff is nonsense. If academic courses were run/marked like this, many would fail.

(0)(2)

Jude

Clearly nonsense (your comment). Plenty of academic courses are run like this. E.g. if you get 85% in your biology practical but 30% in the write up of that practical (and they’re equally weighted), you fail that module. Happens all the time at university.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

The problem with the centrally set exams is the marking scheme for the SAQs, which itself is an expression of the silly breadth of the course.

In (proper) academe students are used to learning subjects and being tested (in problem questions at least) by reference to the law they know, its relevance or otherwise to a given scenario and their ability to spot and develop lines of argument generally. A good answer is therefore informed and thoughtful. The BPTC papers aren’t marked that way. They’re simply ‘vomit on the booklet’ exams – but the vomit has to fall the right way: you have to give the phrasing or keywords that the scheme sets out to get all or most of the marks. So you can get the gist of a right answer but still fail it or get low marks in it.

I have long suspected that the problem is the range of material that the BSB wants covered by all students, which leads to numerous SAQs rather than fewer, deeper questions such as a university would set and would mark on a more realistic basis.

The solution is – yes, it’s unoriginal – to recast Bar finals so that they’re taken in pupillage, provided through the inns and tailored much more to the practice areas of the sponsoring set.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Centralised exams have become more of memory test than it should be and student understanding.

(2)(0)

Not Amused

I dealt with these arguments at length above. I see I am unpopular for this. But take this example – barristers do actually need good memories. So even if the BPTC had degenerated in to just being a memory test, I would still expect wannabe barristers to pass it.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

That’s not what I said (post at 10.45). The scheme requires more than memory; it rewards the use of particular terms from the CPR, PDs, CrPR, Acts and so on, which often do not add anything to the substance of an answer.

I’m not talking about the relatively few core definitions and tests – esp. in criminal lit – that students are told to memorise, but about many others that have appeared in the answers given to students for revision. This is why very high scores in the MCQs – which demonstrate knowledge – can be followed by low marks or fails in the SAQs. The knowledge didn’t evaporate when the page was turned.

(0)(0)

Not Amused

“The scheme requires more than memory; it rewards the use of particular terms from the CPR, PDs, CrPR, Acts ”

False: that is memory. In addition correct use of those terms is essential and expected in practice.

“This is why very high scores in the MCQs – which demonstrate knowledge – can be followed by low marks or fails in the SAQs”

False: MCQs are mush less reliable and I wish the BPTC didn’t use them at all. They are an embarrassment in any course which wishes to be taken seriously.

(2)(1)

Jude

“the relatively few core definitions and tests – esp. in criminal lit – that students are told to memorise”

Maybe herein lies the problem. At my provider it was made very clear that *all* of the tests (i.e. CPR, CrPR, various bits of Acts for crim and basically all the Code of Conduct plus the handbook guidance) should be memorised verbatim.

It made for a very boring term of flashcards and reciting rule after rule until they were word perfect. However I, and others I know who actually learnt in this way, got around the 90% mark for all the knowledge SAQs.

Is this good practice for practice? No
Does it show I understand the rules’ application? Probably not
Did it make me go slightly mad? Yes

But I can’t deny that anyone with a decent memory could do it and pass, especially with no negative marking.
Maybe the providers need to be more honest about what’s expected of you.

(7)(0)

Anonymous

And if you’re a criminal barrister then you need a particularly good memory – so that you can remember all of those (many) cases that you have not been paid for!!

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Attention to detail is mandatory for a career at the bar.

Those students who bemoan the BSB for being pedantic and unfair if their answers failed to contain certain buzz words do themselves no justice.

It is no myth that the BPTC exams are fiddly and nitpicking. We are told that from day 1. Simply revising and appreciating that questions are likely to require you to regurgitate certain responses. We churn out the same key phrases in practice, and I see no objection to the BSB failing students who do not see the importance of this.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

But in practice you are able to refer to the White Book or Archbold. In the BSB exams you are expected to pretty much memorise the entirety of these books.

Can you honestly say you would be able to recall at a drop of hat every CPR you could possibly need without looking at the White Book?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

You’re not expected to memorise the entirety of anything, you fool.

(3)(0)

Mr T

Don’t be nasty – I pity the fool.

(8)(0)

Anonymous

I pity the fool that pities the fool (too many fools – ed.)

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It was even harder when it was the BVC. They incorporated ethics questions within other exams. Typically 4 separate questions worth 5 marks each and then amalgamated into a total score. If you failed one of the 5 mark questions then it was an automatic fail. Was tough!

(2)(4)

Anonymous

Completely ridiculous that the providers are anonymised. If we’re going to let anyone who wants to set up a bptc course and charge an obscene amount of money for it, at the very least we ought to let potential students look at pass rates and make an informed decision. Or are the providers not quite so enamoured of market forces when these might punish them for doing a shitty job?

(8)(0)

Floppsy

Perhaps there’s just more bent, or morally delinquent, people taking the course.

(0)(0)

shirley

you can bitch and moan but you do this at the expense of your focus.

My one focus was that A4 bit of paper.

I treated each exam like a cup tie and I got enough to get that A4 bit of paper.

I wonder if some students think they are entitled to something?

It’s a hurdle to jump.

So jump it or shut up.

(1)(4)

Anonymous

Now, I thought to myself, what’s the best way to help a criminal? I know, I thought, think like a criminal. Look at it from the criminals point of view.
This didn’t really work.
Because when the criminal asked for my advice – I just said ‘ no comment ‘ –
Back to the drawing board me thinks.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

The glaring problem with this entire debate is that without seeing the actual paper along with the mark scheme, it’s impossible to come to any meaningful, informed conclusions.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Haha! If you think these comments are ridiculous you should have sat in the feedback sessions. Failed by half! You didn’t put this word in your answer! Your answer was correct but it wasn’t specific! Pass MCQs with 81 but failed SAQ I got 1 mark on question 3 I think. The problem isn’t even the questions, the problem is the BSB looks for specific answer and there are more than one answers. If it is a test of memory and there are specific answers maybe the module should be taught as such . There were no proper guidelines given as to how to answer and the mocks…. Well was real mockery

(1)(2)

Katie

If the exam tested what it’s supposed to then the fail rate wouldn’t be quite so high. The BSB like to leave no trace of their exam questions so nobody but the students can see what the hell is going on. Ask any BPTC student who failed that ridiculous ethics exam to explain, they’ll fume and tell you the same thing – exam’s not fit for bloody purpose. Freakiest exam I’ve ever taken that’s for sure. This article makes us sound like a load of unethical bozos – but unless you’ve sat the exam yourself, don’t rely on BSB statistics to tell you what’s up. What a load of cock and bull.

(2)(4)

Anonymous

I rather feel that people are missing the point here. Of course the BPTC should be difficult to pass, no-one doubts that. However, can you honestly say that a student who gets 6 outstanding’s, 4 Very Competant’s and 1 Competent is unfit to be at the Bar?

Well no imho you cannot when the reason they failed was because of an ethics paper/mark scheme that was not fit for purpose. The Ethics paper, as important as it is, should not be so critical in determining whether you pass the course or not. Am I an unethical person because I failed? No – it just means that I didn’t win the lottery that was a joke of a paper and mark scheme (along with 50% of other candidates).

Meanwhile, someone who cruised along week to week and just scraped a pass overall is apparently fit to be called.

And no-one will ever know what was in that paper because the BSB’s response to a disclosure request was that to disclose would risk the integrity of the exam…

(1)(1)

Anonymous

“However, can you honestly say that a student who gets 6 outstanding’s, 4 Very Competant’s and 1 Competent is unfit to be at the Bar?”

No, but I’d ask them to go for a spelling and grammar (and consistency) refresher before giving them pupillage.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Fair enough, I deserve to hang my head in shame for that!

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Yes you do, but it’s your modesty I admire.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The above “debate” [read: argument] explains why both the Bar Standards Board & Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal are so busy.

(0)(0)

W Deming

I have only spotted one comment re the variation of pass rates across the providers so, feeling that the debate about whether the BPTC is fit for purpose and the merits of their approach to determining pass/fail has run its course, I would like to stir the pot with respect to the various institutions themselves.

I am aware that a series of FOI requests re pass rates were made last year to the BSB and the institutions. The curious but consistent response was that it was not in the public interest to disclose the pass rates for the individual institutions AND that they were protected from disclosure because it could be damaging to their commercial interests. I also recall (but can’t locate) a response that I think came from the BSB saying that they had agreed not to disclose the identities for the first three years of reporting (ie 2012-2014) in order to give the institutions time to adjust their approach to teaching the course in the light of the results. However, the identities WOULD be provided in 2015. The latest report clearly doesn’t do that but I believe that there are compelling arguments why it should:

1) These are meant to be educational institutions. As far as I am aware, there is consensus that the stats for the vast majority of universities are made available to allow students to make choices about the relative pass rates, or research records, before deciding where to spend their £9,000 per year.

2) If there is an oversupply of BPTC grads (relative to the availability of pupillages) and a debate about the low pass rates then it would make sense to force closure of those institutions that have below X% pass rate. This should result in restricting the number of students enrolled (ok, ok, there would need to be a better selection/admission process…) and provide a solution (of sorts) to the pressure/waste that the current system represents. I know that there is an argument that if someone wants to waste £15,000 – £20,000 in fees, that is up to them but, adding up the numbers, this seems to represent around £7 million per year spent by students who do not pass (and, to be honest, should probably not have been enrolled in the first place). By not revealing the identities, the BSB can be considered to be an accomplice to causing this waste.

3) Forcing the publication of detailed results would correctly put pressure on the institutions to pull their socks up. This happens in many industries and, if they have chosen to run their “universities” as companies, they should be subject to regulated commercial pressures and forced to reveal their results.

So, come on BSB, you are meant to be the regulator – you publish detailed results of how the exams went and, in your reports, make explicit reference to the fact that some students do not seem to have been taught properly – but you refuse to identify the parties on the other side of the equation i.e. the institutions themselves. This needs to change.

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.