3. Methodology
3.6. Selecting Outcome Variables
The principal outcome variables that were examined in studies 1 and 2 are outlined in the following sections. These variables are also described in the relevant method sections of these chapters, albeit in less detail. It is important to note that UCAS tariff points (top 3 A-levels points and/or total tariff points) were used as both a dependent and independent variable in both studies. Additionally, in both studies, inequalities in participation in relation to the distribution of students based on their socio-economic background characteristics (e.g. IMD, POLAR 3, school background) are also investigated.
3.6.1. Three Year Programmes Outcome Variables
In addition to UCAS tariff points, two principal outcome variables were examined in Study 1 (Chapter Four): (i) average university attainment and (ii) final degree classification.
Students' average university attainment was represented as a percentage indicating the average mark achieved for each year of their degree. At the UoL students' final year averages are calculated by multiplying the marks they obtained on these modules by the number of credits allocated to the modules to which the mark relates. They are then totalled together and divided by 120 (the total number of credits for a year of study). This results in an average mark for the year. Degree classifications are based on these average marks, weighted 70% from the mean final year mark and 30% from the mean second year mark. Thus, only the marks for years two and year three are used to determine degree classifications. Analyses in study 1 focused on students’ final (third) year average as this has a 70% weighting on overall degree classification.
Degrees classification was made according to the UK undergraduate degree classification system; first class typically being awarded to those who achieved 70% and above, 2:1 to those who achieved between 60% and 69%, 2:2 awarded to those achieving 50% and 59%, and third-class degrees awarded to students achieving between 40% and 49%. In the UK, a degree that is awarded first-class or upper second-class honours is typically considered a "good degree" (e.g. Richardson, 2008; Smith & Naylor, 2001). This is widely recognised, not only in other studies but also in the employment market, as
specifications for many graduate jobs state that they only consider candidates with upper second and first class degrees (Moreau & Leathwood, 2006b; Richardson, 2008). For these reasons, students' final degree classifications were selected for analyses as the main outcome variable included in the analyses instead of average performance where a binary classification (1st and 2:1 versus others) was used for most analyses.
3.6.2. MBChB Outcome Variables
As explained in section 3.4. , the examinations and attainment outcomes of medical students differs in various ways to those of students on three year degree programmes. To clarify this further, the formative examinations taken by medical students at the UoL are assessed in different ways and have different pass marks to three-year UG programmes. For example, unlike students on most three-year programmes, medical students' are tested on their communication and clinical skills. These can only be passed (85%) or failed (55%), contrasting from the majority of examinations taken by students on three-year undergraduate programmes which typically have a pass mark of 40%. Another difference is that the marks that medical students are allocated for written papers, and special study modules are standard-set. The marks that are released to students are banded to a fixed mark where scores are 'normalised' to a pass-mark of 60% then banded to 55 (fail), 65(pass, i.e. 60-69), 75(good pass/merit), 85 (excellent/distinction). All assessment components are weighted equally within-year, and must be passed by students to allow progression. In order to accurately explore associations between contextual background characteristics and attainment, it was important to select the most appropriate indicator of students' academic attainment. This in itself was complex as there are various indicators that could have acted as potential markers of students’ HE attainment in medical school.
Though students’ overall grades in the medical programmes are not classified in the same way as three year degree programmes (1st, 2.1 etc) , the School of Medicine can award degrees with commendation, distinction or merit. Whilst this could be used as a potential marker of attainment for students, these awards are based on students' performance in specific elements of the medical programme as opposed to overall performance and hence do not capture differences in achievement accurately. Student
rankings are another potential indicator of academic attainment in medical school. This refers to ranks that are allocated to students based on their performance within cohorts. Ranks are provided according to the scoring system used for the UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) ranking. In this scoring system, the 85 result band is ranked with a score of 3, the 75 merit band is ranked with a score of 2, 65 pass result band is ranked with score of 1, and second attempts are given a score of 0. Students are currently given their interim ranking scores at the end of the penultimate year as this is when they sit their final examinations and their final ranking score at the start of the final year. However, student rankings were not used in analyses as the primary indicator of achievement, as these ranks are limited in the extent to which they accurately capture differences in attainment between students (0 is not indicative of their attainment, and low marks or fails 55 are not included at all). Given that the final year of the medical programme is a placement year, which students either pass or fail, the average attainment of students in year four was therefore selected as the main outcome variable that was included in analysis.