GRADUATENESS: SOME EARLY THOUGHTS

Professor John Bell, Department of Law, University of Leeds

A presentation at a seminar on “Standards” as part of the Giving Credit Network at the Unversity of Leeds on Tuesday 29th October 1996

It is not obvious that “graduates” have much in common other than having spent some time at university, any more than “school leavers”. But there are at least three pressures which require us to attempt to explain what graduates are and what they have in common. First, there is the public accountability issue. If large amounts of public money is being spent on the higher education industry, then what is the return? Academics are used to treating education as axiomatically worthwhile, but (especially in England) this view is not shared by many in the rest of the community. What is it that an honours graduate has after three years of study which the holder of the proposed “associate degree” would not have after two years? Secondly, the expansion of higher education has led to a diversity of missions for individual higher education institutions. If there is no single agenda being pursued by the 182 HE institutions, then it behoves them to be explicit about what a graduate from their institution is supposed to be able to offer. Thirdly, the expansion of higher education has made being a graduate commonplace. It is no longer a passport to “graduate” jobs. Students themselves have to be more articulate about what they have gained from their studies and what they have to offer. Their institutions have to help them to be more articulate.

There is an important tension between discipline and institution in both academic and student perceptions of what it is to be a graduate. Students, especially in a traditional university like Leeds, are perceived and perceive themselves as graduates in a discipline or mix of disciplines rather than as sharing common features with all other graduates of the institution. For that reason, in developing statements about graduateness in the University of Leeds, we have started with departments. We have asked a few pilot departments to reflect on the features which they see as important in their own discipline. The results of these have been compared and are produced in Appendix 1. We did not proceed from the University’s mission statement or any university documentation. We relied on what academics actually do, and built the model from there. This approach is one which I think makes more sense in a heavily discipline-based institution.

The changing perception of graduateness

The ability to move from discipline-based to generic conceptions of graduateness is assisted by movements in the way we conceive of what is required to qualify as a graduate. In this context, it is useful to draw on the analysis of standards recently produced by HEQC.[1] It distinguishes three models for setting standards of successful graduates. The cultural model sees standards as fluid and changing embedding in academic (and one might add professional) cultures. Success is measured in relation to such shared cultural presuppositions. Medical and legal professional training has traditionally been strongly of this character, enshrined in the traineeship or pupillage model. In Philosophy, there is the model of the philosophy graduate as one who has learnt ‘how to think like a philosopher’. The curriculum model sets standards in relation to a knowledge base appropriate to the discipline, enshrined in a curriculum. Traditional standards set for entry into the professions such as engineering and law reflect this strongly. Changes in employment demands often lead to changes in the specification of the specific curriculum, but this is heavily enforced. The cognitive model by contrast argues that a degree betokens not so much the mastery of a subject-specific body of knowledge, but the acquisition through the study of that discipline of certain broad intellectual attributes. Such a focus on broad intellectual attribute which enable a student to operate creatively with burgeoning bodies of knowledge arising from a variety of disciplinary perspectives provides a platform for examining graduateness. The specification of the broad intellectual attributes also relates to potential ideas on general transferable skills. The one addition which talk of graduateness provides is that one is able to ascribe a level to the skill which is achieved. There is a difference between the communication expected of a graduate and that of a school leaver. It is not simply that they have different things to talk about, but that the graduate is able to engage in certain sophisticated genres of discourse.

The Concept of General Transferable Skills

There is a large literature on general transferable skills which mentions the topic and draws up lists of the skills which any graduate moving into the labour market should have.[2] However, the different lists are not consistent and often do not seem to be based on much analysis. Equally, it is important to recognise the overlap between general transferable skills developed in higher education and skills specific to a discipline.

Much of the work on skills had been developed with specific reference to vocational courses, e.g. the “legal skills” in the Legal Practice Course and the Bar Vocational Course designed to prepare students for practice as solicitors or at the Bar. University degree courses have traditionally focused on the content to be known, rather than the skills which ought to be fostered as part of legal education. The recent ACLEC report on legal education (April 1996) focuses more on defining qualifying law degrees in relation to learning outcomes, rather than the content required to be known, so a change may come.

Although underinformed and needing greater specification, the debate on “core skills”, already prevalent in Dearing 16-19 is likely to be part of the agenda for Dearing on Higher Education.

The list of general transferable skills in Appendix 2 comes from research conducted by Jenny Johnstone for a DfEE discipline network on General Transferable Skills in the Law Curriculum. It draws on a wide survey of the literature, but specifically draws on Harvey, Burrows and Green, ‘Employer Satisfaction’ (QHE Project 1994), ACLEC’s general transferable intellectual skills (Report, April 1996, Appendix to ch 4) and the Law Society of British Columbia’s requirements for newly called lawyers (1995).

Skills and graduateness:We have therefore drawn on the literature on graduateness to develop a notion of level. It is interesting to map the qualities identified at the University of Leeds in developing a conception of “graduateness” comparing approaches of Law, Biochemistry, Law, Engineering, International Relations and Philosophy (Appendix 2). This also helps to relate skills to knowledge, and sees the two as integrated (and not to be assessed separately as under the Dearing 16-19 proposals).

Graduateness has a degree of universality which general transferable skills do not necessarily have. If we are able to transfer skills, they may only be transferable to comparable contexts (unless we specify a notion such as “communication” at such a high level of abstraction as to be devoid of content). Graduateness is, in reality, focused on “professional” competences and, at that point, it does relate to a more reasonable conception of what is really meant by general transferable skills for graduates.

Skills as a language:Much of the writing about skills gives the impression that skills are a ‘bolt on’ to learning the content of the subject, and this is certainly the impression which colleagues in other universities who have been contacted as part of the project seem to have gained. The impression gains ground that the agenda of general transferable skills is that students should learn substantive legal principles and legal skills and general transferable skills. I think that analysis is fundamentally misconceived. Holmes[3] rightly considers the notion of “skills” as a language, not a thing. We are talking about a way to describe the achievements of a student. In reporting on the general transferable skills of a student, we are saying that the student is not simply good for legal practice, but can be seen as able to work in other environments.

In the same way, conceptions of “graduateness” are simply ways of talking about graduates in a particular discipline. The language of the discipline specialist is perfectly appropriate, but so is that of the University talking about graduateness as a generic feature of its alumni and so is the language of the student wishing to persuade an employer of her general transferable skills.

The relationship between the different languages can be seen by a comparison between Appendices 1 and 2. It is clear that there is significant overlap, even if the expressions are not totally the same. It could be suggested that the generic qualities found in graduates are also the “professional skills” which make them suited for the traditional “graduate” roles in society. If most graduate vacancies do not require subject knowledge or training, then it is that the generic qualities are the ones which are most salient in significant parts of the labour market. If graduates are expected to change careers several times over their working life, then these generic features become even more important.

Is this really relevant?

Whereas the employers and Government agendas are firmly in favour of identifying generic features of graduates and general transferable skills, the academic agenda on standards in an enlarged HE system is wary of this emphasis on skills. In HEQC’s recent Draft 4 of its report on “What is a Graduate?” (15 August 1996), it argues:

“It was widely recognised that graduates might benefit from the possession of many skills and other qualities of general relevance to employment that were not necessarily intrinsic to their fields of study and should, wherever possible, be given the opportunity to acquire them. The general opinion, however, was that the possession of such qualities should be acknowledged and rewarded positively (by, for example, the use of Records of Achievement or additional certification) rather than be made a condition for graduation.” (5.4)

We face a tension between three different models of higher education, arguably a clash between the aspirations of the principal stakeholders in the process. What I would call the instrumental role of higher education sees it as a way of obtaining qualifications which will improve the employability of individuals either generally or in a specific field such as law. The critical role of higher education argues that higher level learning should enable students to examine critically the external world, including the world of work, maintain their own critical space and not just conform to its demands. A third model is of the personal developmentor cultural of individuals. Coming to university is now just part of growing up and becoming an adult - a rite of passage with limited wider ambitions as regards the development of society. In a system of mass higher education, there will be even an unreflective presence of students in universities which may push the system in directions which neither the Government nor its detractors would find acceptable. Indeed research by HEQC finds this third feature to be the aspect stressed as important by students, but not by either employers or academics.

A concept of graduateness is able to speak to these different constituencies in the expanded HE sector. A focus on employability is not sufficient to motivate students or staff. (The increasing number of third age students are an obvious example of those for whom employability is not relevant.) It may motivate some, but others may prefer to give priority to the broader social functions of education. The intellectual and personal features of the list of general transferable skills can be promoted and may motivate others. A concept of graduateness needs to be able to embrace the multiple purposes for which individuals seek a university education.

Conclusion

I believe the debate on graduateness is timely, not because of any lack of confidence in the system, but because the HE system is changing. We need to review what we do at present to ensure that our students can be articulate about the qualities they are undoubtedly achieving. A greater explicitness in our attention to the qualities required of graduates may also help us ensure that we are doing the best by them. If teamwork is something we value, then how do we help them achieve this and in what way do we know that they are at least minimally competent in this dimension of graduateness?

There will be those who think that these issues and the changes which they may bring about in what we teach and assess are not properly part of higher education, or, if they are, we are not resourced to deliver them. These are debates which have to be entered into. We have to be serious about potential dilution of subject-specific knowledge requirements be honest if these are required. I believe that the potential dilution is less than the critics fear, if only because, as the Leeds study shows, colleagues already value many of the features which a statement of graduateness renders explicit.

The list of qualities in Appendix 1 may not be perfect. It could be argued that we need to ensure that there is value given to independence of learning and that students should be assessed on what they are capable of doing with what they have learned or done, not just on having learned or done something. Refinement is likely to be needed. But the main thing is that a debate is started and started now.

APPENDIX 1

THE SIX CORE SKILLS[4]

1. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

The ability to act with self-critical reflection and responsibility and with an understanding of the ethical standards in the use of knowledge or in the performance of a professional role.

This includes MANAGING AND ORGANISING: an awareness of the modern business environment, using resources available to effectively run and manage work and time efficiently. Organising embraces such skills as time management, planning, delegating responsibility and accepting responsibility.

2. TEAMWORK

An ability to establish working relations with others, defining, sharing and delegating responsibilities within the group, encouraging people to work together productively (including the ability to interact effectively in social groups).

3. COMMUNICATION

Demonstrate abilities of both interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, presenting written and oral arguments in a clear and cogent manner, responding to questions and situations appropriately. This includes skills such as listening, reflecting, clarifying and negotiating.

4. PROBLEM SOLVING

Identifying issues, assimilating, evaluating and analysing information as a product of independent or group research, making effective use of time and resources available. A willingness to learn and continue learning whatever the outcome.

This includes RESEARCH :An understanding of research tools available along with the ability to plan, conduct and implement a research project; an ability to synthesise, demonstrating the ability to bring together in a coherent form thte different facets of the materials studied. This requires an understanding of appropriate contributions from other disciplines.

5. PERSONAL QUALITIES

Self reliant, an ability to deal with the unexpected, and match individual skills with that required in a particular situation. Ability to accept and provide constructive feedback.

6. INTELLECTUAL SKILLS

Ability to construct logical arguments, to abstract and manipulate complex information.

The ACLEC Report (p 72) suggests the following as General Transferable Intellectual Skills.

1)the ability to construct a logical argument

2)the capacity for abstract manipulation of complex ideas;

3)the systematic management of complex factual information;

4)intelligent critical reading of text;

5)the use of English Language at all times with scrupulous care and integrity;

6)the related ability to communicate orally and in writing in a clear, consistent and compelling way;

7)competence in retrieving, assessing, analysing and using legal text and information including information technology skills.

APPENDIX 2

GRADUATENESS

The following list was compiled by synthesis from working groups within the University of Leeds (Biochemistry, Engineering, Law, International Relations, Philosophy). The list has been restructured for this presentation to highlight the relationship between this definition of graduateness and the general transferable skills listed in Appendix 1.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. Professionalism: An ability to operate practically and appropriately as a practitioner of the discipline (e.g. in a laboratory or in design). The ability to act with self-critical reflection and responsibly with an understanding of the ethical standards in the use of knowledge or in the performance of a professional role.

TEAMWORK & PERSONAL QUALITIES

2. Inter-personal skills: Ability to work in teams; self-motivation

COMMUNICATION

3. Presentation: The ability to present findings and arguments in a way which convinces an informed professional audience.

PROBLEM SOLVING

4. Creativity: The ability to make an independent personal contribution to the understanding of the subject by gathering new information, engaging in new projects or offering insights not dependent on what has been given.

INTELLECTUAL SKILLS

5. Knowledge and understanding: ‘A broad knowledge and understanding of the discipline area with a fluent knowledge of the vocabulary of the subject.’ (Biochemistry). The key features are a broad map of the discipline and general knowledge about it so as to be able to access knowledge and assimilate information about it at a later date. There is no sense that one needs to know a large body of information in a changing world of knowledge.

6. Analysis: The ability to use a range of analytical techniques appropriate to the discipline. Analysis involves:

- the use of a series of specialist and general techniques, tools and literature;

- recognition of alternatives and ability to select the best approach;

- ability to apply knowledge and to engage in reasoning to solve problems.

7. Synthesis: The ability to bring together in a coherent way different facets of the materials studied. An adequate breadth of approach is implied in this requirement.

8. Evaluation: Ability to handle evidence in a professional and fair way; ability to make critical judgments based on an appropriate range of evidence; ability to make critical comments in ways which conform to standards of professional judgment within the discipline; ability to set learning in a broader context.

What is interesting about the above is the way in which they integrate a statement about general qualities of graduates within a specific discipline context. There is also a sense in which there is a strong link between such outcomes and conceptions of ‘undergraduate education’ in general. Many of these ideas are really about the process of learning, providing thus a bridge between the idea of education as personal development (which is properly different for different people) and subject-content development (which is more properly common to a cohort in terms of achievements required).

[1]Academic Standards in