Dear Senior Leadership Team,

We, as a community of academics, educators and scholars, are writing to you with grave concern over the response of the University to the current Marking and Assessment Boycott. Whilst there are, clearly, issues developing at national level in the UK, we want to address the decisions being made at local level at Heriot-Watt.

In relation to Regulation A10: Authorities in Exceptional Circumstances, we believe that enacting these procedures at scale this summer, as proposed, threatens the integrity of our degrees, runs counter to requirements of accrediting institutions, and has the potential to significantly damage the international reputation of our institution.

We are particularly troubled by:

• The instruction to award discretionary credits (DC) without any limit to the number of DCs, where assessment information is not available. Furthermore, results are already being “deferred” in boards where marks are missing – but without a plan, other than DCs, for what happens when they cannot be deferred any longer.
• Reducing significantly the number of experienced staff required to convene an Assessment, Progression or Award board, thereby reducing scrutiny to ineffectual level.
• Recording grades for assessments that have not been either second-marked or moderated across campuses, or both
• The exclusion of work submitted during the summer exam period from degree classification calculations

The global nature of our university, and the global teaching teams and content delivery, mean that the Industrial Action taking place in the UK impacts quality across our international campuses. The premise of the Heriot Watt Degree being equal on all campuses is anchored in the symbiotic marking and scrutiny of assessments.

Particularly in the case of final-year students, the use of DCs to enable an Award to be made, which cannot then be withdrawn due to the university policy of “no academic disadvantage”, explicitly threatens the integrity of our degrees. This action would risk losing accredited status from a number of our Professional, Statutory and Regulatory bodies, which would impact huge numbers of our global student population, not only this year but also in future years – and we are not aware of any meaningful dialogue with these accrediting bodies to understand these implications. Loss of reputation and/or accreditation risks severely impacting student and staff recruitment.

Expert scrutiny is vital in maintaining the integrity and consistency of academic standards. By stripping back these processes, we risk creating a situation where degrees are no longer awarded on the basis of merit and hard work, but on arbitrary decisions made by a small group of individuals for the sake of expediting a business process. This is unacceptable, both for our students and for the wider academic community.

Of particular concern is the impact on final year undergraduates, who face the prospect of having a significant proportion of their assignments go unmarked. This includes the dissertation and/or final project, which should be the crowning achievement of their degree. We are also concerned about the impact of these changes on students with disabilities, mental health difficulties, or who face systemic inequalities. In the absence of an Equality Impact Assessment, we fear that these measures may exacerbate existing inequalities and make vulnerable students even more disadvantaged.

Furthermore, the impact on staff does not seem to have been adequately considered, and this is particularly evident by the decision to dock the pay of staff participating in legal industrial action by 50%. To do so during a cost-of-living crisis, on the basis of advice from the national employer organisation UCEA, shows a disconnect with your own staff at a local level. On a more practical level, the implications of this decision are likely to be twofold: i) staff participating in the current action will have no option but to reduce their time to 50% FTE, and ii) the long-term impact on staff relations will be dire, destroying community and collegiality, running directly counter to Heriot Watt Values of ‘Belong’.

We acknowledge that the current dispute is complex, and that there are competing demands and interests at play. However, we firmly believe that there is a better way to resolve this situation, one that does not disadvantage our students or undermine the integrity of our degrees. As educators, we cannot stand by and allow our degrees, the welfare of our students, and the well-being of staff to be treated with such disregard.

We urge you to reconsider your approach to this dispute, to lead a fresh approach to negotiations at a national level, and to engage with staff in a meaningful dialogue at local level. We believe that by working together, we can find a solution that upholds academic standards, treats students fairly, and preserves the global reputation of Heriot Watt University.

Sincerely,

The letter is about our concerns at a local level. It is not from the Heriot-Watt branch of UCU but rather from a mix of members and non-members who all agree with the points raised.

If you wish to add your name please sign at https://forms.gle/tmxQ57wcWgkknDQV9