Warwick’s Seymour formula to be reviewed

The University is considering altering or even removing the Seymour formula, a mechanism for rewarding extra credits.

The move by the University has attracted interest. Named after Professor E. F. W. Seymour, Professor of Physics at Warwick until 1986, the formula enables students in the Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, and Statistics departments to be rewarded for taking extra credits above the required 120 CATs.

The University will seek to address the issue in the mandatory Self-Evaluation Document (SED) ahead of the next assessment, which is due next academic year, following the recommendations in the 2008 review by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), responsible for monitoring Higher Education Institutions.

The central University is currently discussing the issue with the Faculty of Science, and also exploring whether a compromise between the two arms of the University is feasible.

Azeem Sheikh, the Undergraduate Science Faculty Representative for the Student Staff Liason Committee, believes that the QAA does not seek the removal of Seymour, but is looking for greater clarification on the subject and particularly how it affects joint-degree students.

Head of Communications at the University, Peter Dunn, told the Boar: “QAA’s concerns have focused on the need to ensure we are treating students equitably in determining degree classifications.

“The University is therefore looking to address these concerns while also ensuring that students are still permitted to take additional modules where their course regulations allow, and that appropriate recognition is given where students take on additional modules, thereby retaining the flexibility that is a distinctive feature of many science degrees at Warwick.”

The main arguments against the use of the mechanism centre around a perception of the potential for inequality. Students in departments that do not allow extra credits may be placed at a disadvantage, as opposed to those who take extra modules and consequently achieve a higher grade.

For example, a student who achieves an average of 65 percent in each module but does well in the additional modules (over the usual 132) can push their overall mark beyond 70 percent, and therefore gain a first class degree, instead of the 2:1 achieved in their main subject area.

However, the departments that facilitate the Seymour formula have pointed out that taking extra modules entails extra work, which should therefore be rewarded accordingly. The additional ten percent undertaken, i.e. 12 CATS, requires approximately an additional 120 hours of work over the academic year.

The Maths and Science departments argue that these rewards provide students with the incentive necessary to take on these extra modules, and hence take greater use of the academic opportunities available.

Speaking to the Boar, second-year Computer Science student James Marchant noted that the formula was not perfect: “There are certainly those who ‘game’ the system, but removing it is not the answer; if anything, it should be spread out to all departments or, at the very least, tweaked to stop people taking easy options. No-one should ever be disincentivised from studying more, particularly at a world-ranked university like Warwick.”

The SSLC have set out a number of alternative options to the Seymour Formula. However, as Sheikh commented, most proposed options remove the majority of the motivation to take on a greater than normal load: “Learning the material purely for one’s self-gratification would simply not be done.”

He believed that major casualties would be modules such as ‘Introduction to Secondary School Teaching’ which he considered would be “a travesty and a source of great disappointment to all.”

The Maths Department’s web page comments: “The formula gives fair credit for your extra work if you can handle more than the normal load, while discouraging you from offering a module which you have not studied seriously, on the off-chance of picking up a few extra marks.”

However, students who are incapable of tackling the burden of extra modules are discouraged from doing so. The department further comments that students who ‘overcat’ but perform poorly in comparison with their mandatory modules may even decrease their grades.

As a result, the Maths and Science departments argue that only capable students will take on extra modules, “and can do so without fear of adverse impact upon their overall mark.”

Daniel Neville, Chair of the Computer Science SSLC, spoke in favour of the formula: “Warwick is an elite University. Only by students going above and beyond the call of duty can this be maintained. Employers have stated it is the broad skill set that sets Warwick students apart. Seymour supports students in attaining a wide range of knowledge and hence increases not only our students’ employability but also their academic knowledge, and we cannot afford to lose this.”

Students’ Union Education Officer Sean Ruston concurred: “The argument from students is that there is a value in having the ability to explore other modules. If you get rid of the incentive to do extra modules, no one would do them because it would be too harsh, and this reduces the flexibility and scope of courses.”

However, second-year Chemistry student Conor Forster said that he felt the system was unfair: “A student who does everything that is required of them and receives a high 2:1, has the possibility of receiving a lower degree class than a student who does extra modules but does not achieve as highly but can still obtain first class honours. To me that is unfair.”

Both Sheikh and Ruston championed the opportunities that Seymour provides, arguing that it forms a strong element in both the Maths and Science degrees on offer at the University.

Sheikh commented that “removing [the wide scope of available modules] takes away one of Warwick’s distinguishing attributes – the breadth offered by many of the degree courses. In trying to follow this misguided ideal of equity and harmonisation, we risk endangering that which makes Warwick, Warwick.”

Ruston agreed that the flexibility the Seymour formula “provides a lot of value to the Warwick Maths degree, similarly with Physics, and other degree courses which offer it.

“I think other departments should be able to use the system too, but I wouldn’t like to see these subjects being diminished from the Warwick degree for the sake of harmonization.

“If the distinctiveness and flexibility of these hard science degrees is degraded, it is not going to help anyone. What we should be thinking about is getting it in humanities, not levelling down.”

However, any change to the system would come about in 2013, and thus would not affect current students. Nevertheless, Ruston commented that “we have not received confirmation from the University that [the Seymour formula] will not be removed.

“This decision has to be made quite imminently, from the SU point of view, we don’t want to see a levelling down, we want to see a levelling up; we want to see what students value about their degree.”

Changes to the system have particularly given rise to controversy due to the fact that there is no system quite like the one at Warwick at any other academic institution with which to draw comparisons. Some institutions do operate university-wide schemes, however, such as the London School of Economics. In addition, Oxford University’s Chemistry Department applies a bonus where students gain a distinction in additional, non-mandatory subjects.

Due to this, the Sub-Faculty of Science’s SSLC meeting commented: “It is not clear therefore that there are any direct lessons to be learned from other institutions, other than that a number, although not all, operate largely standardised course structures.”