The value of Subject Benchmark Statements

Given all the work that goes into the formulation of Subject Benchmark Statements, you might sometimes wonder whether they're really worth it. (Spoiler alert: We very much think they are.)

Subject Benchmark Statements are curated by QAA as the UK-sector-led descriptors of taught disciplines: they describe the nature of study and the academic standards expected of graduates in specific subject areas. They show what graduates might reasonably be expected to know, do and understand at the end of their studies, and are used as reference points in the design, delivery and review of academic programmes. 

They are published by QAA and written and developed by panels of subject experts (selected to represent the diversity of their fields) whose work we at QAA coordinate and facilitate. They're reviewed and revised on a seven-year cyclical basis to reflect the latest subject developments. 

Today we're publishing this year's set of Subject Benchmark Statements: revised editions of the Statements for Accounting, Finance, Music, Philosophy and Education Studies, as well as for Librarianship, Information, Knowledge, Records and Archives Management, and Physics, Astronomy and Astrophysics; and a new Statement for Public Policy and Public Administration. 

This is the end point of a rigorous process of collaboration and consultation. It takes nearly two years to put together a Subject Benchmark Statement. As you might expect, the process of their creation is one of continual enhancement, and the custodianship of these key documents is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

Our conversations with the sector had begun far back as 2020 as to the cross-cutting themes which would inform the development of the current cycle of SBS reviews. There had been a desire that such themes should underpin a consistency of approach to these reviews by aligning the Statements with core concerns articulated by providers and subject organisations across the sector: education for sustainable development; inclusive practice to help to close awarding gaps; accessibility to meet the diverse needs of students; and developing graduate skills in employability, entrepreneurship and enterprise.

We have since introduced another overarching theme that has become a central concern of the higher education sector, both in the UK and globally: the impact on learning, teaching and assessment practices of the proliferation of generative AI.

The subject-level process for the latest set of revised Statements began in spring 2023 with discussions as to which disciplines would be scheduled for review: not only those whose review would be due anyway within the standard seven-year cycle, but also those put forward by subject associations and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) as more urgently in need of review (for example, as a result of changes in PSRB registration requirements). 

Once these were agreed, there then followed conversations with members of relevant academic communities, subject associations and PSRBs to consider any significant developments in each field which would need to be addressed, and to explore options for the structuring and grouping of subjects within each Statement.

Autumn 2023 saw the call for expressions of interest and (in consultation with relevant PSRBs) the appointment of the chairs of the advisory groups that would formulate these Statements, followed by working with those chairs to select advisory group members - members who include not only academic experts from across the sector and from across the UK, but also student, industry and professional body representatives. Then, with the appointment of those panels at the beginning of 2024, the real work began.

This method encourages these advisory groups to work collaboratively, distributing responsibilities for different aspects of their Statement among their members. Many have chosen to divide the ownership of each theme to groups of panel members with particular interests in each area, in order to allow people to play to their particular strengths. These groups then return together to integrate their work, to ensure the coherence of the final document.

This all clearly requires a great deal of work, but it's an approach that's been commended by chairs as promoting the balanced representation of the diverse range of perspectives and approaches which underpin the richness of each discipline. And, in the end, it's that diversity which makes all these people's work worthwhile.

An SBS isn't about imposing a one-size-fits-all approach. It's not about trying to prescribe a national curriculum. It's about agreeing a set of parameters which help educators establish thresholds of consistency in relation to the quality, standards, values, aims and expectations of their provision, in line with the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications in the UK.

It gives prospective students and employers an understanding of the skills and prospects of graduates of a particular discipline. It helps to align provision with the requirements of PSRBs and supports educators in the planning, design, delivery and enhancement of their provision. For those creating new courses, it offers to serve as a map to their destination, it gives them both confidence and flexibility through the benefit of their peers' knowledge and understanding, as it recognises that you can take a variety of routes to get where you want to be.

But it doesn't just outline effective practice in assessment, learning and teaching methods, and the specificities of subject content and graduate attributes. Perhaps most importantly, it allows academic disciplines to articulate to themselves and to the world, in a time of constrained resources, the focus of their work, the value that they give their students and their broader economic, professional, industrial, cultural and social impacts.

This may well be the reason why the advisory groups commit so much effort and energy to their creation. Their passion for the subjects shines through their work, and it seems very clear that they want their readers to be passionate about them too.

This perspective is echoed by those who led the advisory panels who wrote the set of Statements we're publishing today. Durham University's Professor Stephen Mumford chaired the panel for the new edition of the Philosophy Statement. He told us: "It was almost a philosophical exercise in itself, defining the nature and boundaries of philosophy. I think it's important that the world knows what it can expect of a philosophy graduate. We found it a great opportunity to talk about the skills that a philosophy graduate will have."

A point emphasised by the academics who chaired this year's subject panels was their practical use by prospective students and prospective employers, as well as by educators within each discipline. Chair of the Finance panel, the University of Strathclyde's Professor Andrew Marshall said: "They're used by external examiners and by people reviewing and evaluating programmes. It was terribly important to get employers on our panel and I'd hope that employers will become more aware of Statements and will use them too. I'd also hope that prospective students would look at them to find out what studying a subject means."

The University of Birmingham's Dr Karin Bottom, Chair of the Public Policy and Public Administration Advisory Group, told us: "A Subject Benchmark Statement sets the guidelines and boundaries of what a subject is and what needs to be taught, without being prescriptive. In subjects allied to professions, that's particularly important. It gives programmes credibility with organisations that may fund people who take these degrees and that may employ people who've taken these degrees."

That's a point also made by the University of Birmingham's Professor Mike Gunn, who chaired the advisory group for Physics, Astronomy and Astrophysics: "Subject Benchmark Statements are important for employers, students and their families. They give employers information about what skills a graduate will emerge with. They tell prospective students why a subject is worth studying – why it's engaging, interesting and important. And the show their families that they can get a job afterwards."

Chair of the Education Studies panel, the University of Hull's Professor Richard Woolley added: "I think we've set an ambitious agenda for our subject. There are diverse views and all those are welcome and included in the Statement. It isn't just a benchmark to be measured against – it's a benchmark that's something to aspire to."