Hillhead Review

The review, initiated last July after the University self-referred concerns to the Scottish Funding Council, examined the University’s assessment regulations, exam board processes, and student communications. It followed an internal investigation into the death of a student earlier this year, which identified what the University itself described as a ‘systemic problem’ in following its own assessment regulations.

Although the review did not investigate individual cases, including that of Ethan Brown, whose death by suicide last year followed concerns about the handling of his degree outcome, its findings point to broader institutional weaknesses in the University’s assessment framework.

Award decisions deemed ‘Insufficient to safeguard’

The most serious finding concerns the University’s Assessment Framework. The review concludes that current interim measures are ‘insufficient to safeguard the security of all award decisions in the University’ and therefore ‘demonstrate a systemic risk to academic standards’.

The QAA further highlights the risks posed by the University’s reliance on locally maintained spreadsheets to calculate degree outcomes. The review found that ‘schools use locally derived individualised spreadsheets’, and that at the time of the visit, ’18 different spreadsheet formats’ were in operation across the University.

The review team noted that the University ‘struggled to establish exactly which spreadsheets were in use and where,’ describing this as ‘indicative of the lack of institutional oversight’ and itself ‘a systemic risk to academic standards’.

Programme-level aggregation, the process by which final degree outcomes are calculated, was described as remaining weak, with ‘reliance on locally maintained spreadsheets and inconsistent routes to programme aggregation’ posing risks to consistency and assurance at exam boards.

Confirmed Errors in Degree Outcomes

As part of follow-up investigations in the School of Geographical and Earth Sciences (GES), where Ethan Brown had been a student, the University reviewed more than 700 student records. The report states that this process ‘confirmed two students with mistaken outcomes’ and identified ‘a further five students requiring further investigation’

It also notes that ‘no similar checks had been made in any of the other 23 schools at the institution’ at the time of the visit.

The review reports that errors identified had ‘serious consequences for the outcomes applied to the students affected’.

Complexity and Training Gaps

The review also criticises the University’s Code of Assessment, describing its drafting as ‘long, dense and complex,’ making it difficult for staff to interpret consistently.

It further notes that ‘there is no institutional record of training on the Code of Assessment’ (p.7), and highlights ‘the inherent complexity and convoluted nature of the Code of Assessment’ alongside ‘a culture that allows for varied approaches in each school of the University’ (p.18).

The review recommends urgent introduction of mandatory, cyclical training for Assessment Officers, exam board Chairs, and key administrators before the next assessment period.

The ‘75% Rule’ and Learning Outcomes

The review raises particular concern about the University’s ‘75% rule.’ Under §16.41 of the Code of Assessment, students are normally required to submit at least 75% by weight of a course’s summative assessment in order to receive credit, meaning credit can be awarded even if not all assessed components are completed.

The review states that there is ‘no formal mechanism that guarantees, at the point credit is awarded, that a student has demonstrated all intended learning outcomes’. It concludes that the current arrangements ‘do not provide assurance that, where the 75% rule is applied, all intended learning outcomes are met before credit is awarded’.

The University has committed to removing the 75% rule as part of a wider assessment regulation simplification programme.

Good Cause Reform and Student Support

The review was critical of the previous Good Cause (GC) policy, finding ‘no evidence that the University was able to apply the previous GC Policy consistently across all schools’, and noting that its decentralised structure increased the likelihood of inconsistent decision-making.

The new Extenuating Circumstances (EC) policy, introduced in September 2025, is endorsed by the review team as a positive step. However, the long-term effectiveness of the new system has yet to be fully evaluated.

Communication and ‘Compassionate’ Practice

Students interviewed during the review described official University communications as ‘daunting’, while staff acknowledged that some communications ‘lack empathy’.

The University has committed to embedding ‘compassionate communication’ across academic and professional services, and is co-designing new award outcome letters with student representatives.

Responding to the publication of the report, Vicki Stott, Chief Executive of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), said:

‘I am grateful to the Targeted Peer Review team for conducting such a thorough and robust review of the University of Glasgow. The findings are of serious concern. 

We are committed to working closely with the university and the Scottish Funding Council to ensure that the University of Glasgow implements the recommendations in this report in a timely manner so that academic standards are protected, and the quality of student experience at the university is safeguarded. 

We look forward to completing the wider work that the Scottish Funding Council has announced today related to these topics, with the Scottish sector.’

The review recommends continued external monitoring over the next two academic years, with a further peer review scheduled for 2027–28.

A University spokesperson told Hillhead Review: 

“Following an internal investigation into assessment regulations, the University self-referred to the Scottish Funding Council. 

“The University fully accepts the recommendations subsequently made by the QAA Peer Review and the risks it identifies. 

“Since February 2025, we have worked to address the issues highlighted in the internal investigation and will implement the recommendations of the QAA review through a comprehensive plan that builds on current change projects.”

The Student Representative Council has been contacted for comment.