A strength of our university system is that we are still able to debate ideas in an open-minded way. David Barron (Letters, THES, June 23) notes that my faculty board will be debating the merits of different scaling procedures at its next meeting.
Scaling of marks is undertaken on the relatively rare occasions we see evidence of an anomaly with a particular course, compared with the overall profile of examination results. Such scaling automatically triggers an inquiry to find out what went wrong and to put in place actions to avoid this in the future. The purpose is not to pass students who would otherwise fail (or the converse), but it is true that different methods of scaling have different effects on borderline cases. There is no "correct' rule and, as is proper, my faculty board will debate the matter and come to some conclusion. The purpose is to give students a fair deal and ensure that we have in place a quality loop to ensure corrective action is taken in problem cases. Although "good old-fashioned academic standards" certainly need to be maintained, I am less convinced that, in the past, problem results were dealt with in such a responsible manner.
Tony Hey
Dean of engineering and applied science, University of Southampton