Two consultations were held.
'A consultative paper on Qualifications Frameworks: Postgraduate Qualifications' was published in November 1998 with a closing date for responses of 26 April 1999. This consultation addressed the underlying general principles for the frameworks to encompass both undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications, but was concerned in detail with only postgraduate matters.
A summary of responses to the consultation on postgraduate qualifications was published, as Annex 2, within:
' A consultative paper on Higher Education Qualifications Frameworks for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI), and for Scotland' . This paper was published in September 1999, with a closing date for responses of 20 December 1999. The consultation was concerned with the development of the National Qualifications Frameworks for Higher Education, building upon agreement on the underlying general principles, and identifying specific issues and details of qualifications at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
Responses to the Consultative paper on Higher Education Qualifications
Frameworks for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI), and for Scotland.
The consultation paper was distributed widely to HE and FE institutions, Statutory and Professional Bodies and Subject Associations, organisations representing students and employers, the funding and research councils, and others. The paper was also available on the web.
Responses
More than 300 written responses were received; most included a completed proforma.
More than 100 responses were received from HEIs in England, 18 in Scotland, 12 in Wales and 3 in Northern Ireland. A further 20 were received from departments within HEIs. Written responses were received from 30 FE institutions, approximately 90 from statutory and professional bodies, subject associations and similar, student and employers groups, and other organisations, and approximately 30 from individuals.
Associated discussion meetings
Discussion meetings were held in Cardiff, Leicester, Dundee, Westminster, Leeds and Belfast; approximately 400 delegates attended these meetings.
Summary of responses
Most responses expressed general support for the aims and objectives and the proposed underlying principles; areas of majority agreement included:
- the particular qualifications proposed [several responses however noted the need to include other qualifications e.g. the medical / dental / veterinary qualifications];
- support, overall, for a phasing out of the Pass degree and introduction of a new General degree, although a majority of responses from English HEIs recommended retention of the former;
- the proposed degree definitions, with the exception of that proposed for the General degree;
- that it would be desirable to develop distinguishing nomenclatures for generic and specific qualifications [although a significant number of responses considered that this should not be a priority area since the development of programme specifications and transcripts would reduce any perceived problem];
- that it would be desirable to limit the number of ways of describing subject focus in the nomenclature of awards [although a significant number of responses considered that this should not be a priority area since the development of programme specifications and transcripts would reduce any perceived problem];
- that certain titles should be reserved for earned higher doctorates, though there was little agreement on what these might be;
- that other distinctive titles should be reserved for honorary awards (the addition of Hon before the award, or the use of M.Univ. or D.Univ were common suggestions).
Some reservations were expressed about particular aspects of implementation. The main foci of such comments were:
- the proposed number of levels;
- difficulties interpreting the implications in the absence of levels descriptors;
- the timetable of both the consultation and the development of the new method for Quality Assurance;
- various specific nomenclature issues (most commonly concerning the various forms of undergraduate masters);
- some of the proposals relating to the MPhil;
- the relationship between academic and vocational qualifications.
Areas of general disagreement:
- the number of levels proposed;
- a proposal for the introduction of a 'low volume' doctoral level award.
Most responses from Scotland, and some from EWNI, referred to the Scottish MA. These responses indicated various opinions regarding retention or abolition of the MA for some Scottish undergraduate courses, with or without Honours.
Issues
The number of undergraduate levels
Significant support was expressed for the introduction of a 4th undergraduate level within EWNI, to include the various forms of non-honours bachelors degrees (an alternative proposal was that the non-honours degree should be placed at the same level as the honours degree but have a 300 credit minimum).
The number of postgraduate levels
Some support was expressed for 3 postgraduate levels. Most support for a third level noted a need for a second masters level, to accommodate the 'typical MPhil' [i.e. a higher/advanced/ starred/with honours .. masters .. ; there was less agreement on a nomenclature for this level].
The relationship between the frameworks for Scotland and EWNI
A number of responses from across the UK commented on a preference for a UK-wide framework, or for the same numbering where levels are equivalent. There were various suggestions on how to reach a common UK wide framework/numbering, the most common being the introduction of a 4th undergraduate level in EWNI to cover the non-honours degrees.
Levels and qualifications descriptors
Many respondents indicated that it was difficult/impossible to answer some of the questions in the absence of levels descriptors; many noted that the development of levels descriptors should be done in consultation with the sector. A few specific comments concerned those descriptors already developed.
It was widely agreed that the definitions of qualifications should be framed as statements of outcomes of study. A number of responses indicated that these statements should articulate the achievements, qualities and attributes that are of relevance to and understood by stakeholders including, for example, employers. Comments also noted a need for appropriate recognition of different types and patterns of inputs.
Other comments anticipated that subject benchmark statements could assist with the development of generic criteria and descriptions at the level of the honours degree. This would indicate the equivalence, across the UK, of the achievements represented by honours degrees awarded by different institutions, in different subjects, and following different patterns of study.
Similarly, such descriptors would be needed for, and should help to demonstrate, the alignment of standards for the other main exit qualifications from UK HE (e.g. diplomas, masters and doctoral qualifications).
Top