The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has published a report setting out their findings of a Targeted Peer Review (TPR) of the University of Glasgow.
This explainer mentions death by suicide. If you are affected in any way by reading this, please call Samaritans for free on 116 123 (UK and Republic of Ireland).
The review follows a student death by suicide after a grade error found systemic failures in academic standards at the university.
A Targeted Peer Review is an outcome of the Scottish Quality Concern Scheme (SQCS) where there is evidence of issues relating to academic standards or the quality of the student experience. It exists to support a timely resolution of concerns, safeguard risks and explore potential weaknesses and systemic risks to academic standards the student experience.
After the relevant notifications were made a site visit took place in October 2025 which included eight meetings with staff, students and a presentation delivered by the university,
The SFC submitted a concern to the SQCS in July 2025 on the basis of academic standards. It followed an internal investigation at Glasgow in response to the death of a student. The internal review was focused on the school where the student had been studying but the issues identified extended beyond that school.
A Targeted Peer Review then took place and identified areas for development and weaknesses in the areas reviewed which indicated systemic risks at the university.
Jim has more commentary on the main site but here’s the takeaways for SUs.
Complex and misunderstood regulations
The first problem area the team found was long, dense and complex assessment regulations and guidance, with some calculation mechanisms maintained locally in schools and often using locally derived spreadsheets. The team also identified that the assessment regulations were not effective in securing consistent interpretation and decision-making across the university and therefore was a risk to academic standards. Because calculations took place locally, there was a greater possibility of variation and error.
The TPR team met with assessment officers and external examiners who reported little to no formal training on the assessment code and instead a reliance on local briefs and practice. They also heard that familiarity with the code was “on-the-job” rather than mandatory training.
The team found controls for consistent understanding and application but no assurance of its reach or usage. This inconsistency in application, interpretation and understanding of regulations was identified as a key risk to academic standards.
When considering how the university awards outcomes that are calculated and recorded consistently they found the university is moving away from diverse, local spreadsheets and towards central calculator routes and records. The calculation and recording of grades is getting better but is still in transition, the TPR recommended a rigorous review of the exam board spreadsheet before assessments in the 2025-26 academic year.
Worryingly the team found that when a point credit is awarded, there is no formal mechanism to demonstrate all intended learning outcomes have been met. The report references the 75 per cent rule which is where on a course level, the minimum requirement for the award of credit is the submission of at least 75 per cent of the course’s summative assessment. The gap between learning outcomes and awarding credit was heightened when the 75 per cent rule was enforced, although senior staff confirmed that there is unplanned removal of this rule.
One of the recommendations included strengthening scrutiny and oversight of exam boards, making minutes templates compulsory, short pre-board readiness checklists, explicit alignment statements for local or PSRB requirements and regularly auditing minutes.
Extension requests
To unpack this section we need to understand a few local definitions. Glasgow had a previous good cause policy (GC) which was a process for students to report extenuating circumstances that may have affected their ability to take or perform in exams or submission of assessments. The university also had a wider extension request process.
Both the GC and extension request processes had been under active review since 2021 and had been a key manifesto promise for several student officers.
The problems with the GC policy were about inconsistency of application, leading to confusion for students. The team also identified problems with students struggling to access support pathways, fragmented digital infrastructure, inconsistent operation of processes, potential for single points of failure and complex evidence requirements, all presenting barriers for students seeking support.
The university was in the process of creating a new extenuating circumstances policy but were trying to integrate it into a wellbeing policy and wider strategic priorities which was being completed in consultation with the Student Representative Council.
The new EC policy was implemented in the 25-26 academic year and includes short-term extensions and any extenuating circumstances with a single digital portal for all claims. The team met with staff who were concerned about resourcing of the new policy due to an increase of student referrals to the wellbeing and safeguarding teams. They recommended the university ensure resourcing to meet the operational demands by the end of semester two of the 25-26 academic year.
The team found no evidence the previous GC policy was applied consistently, again suggesting a risk to academic standards and quality of the student experience. The previous model was decentralised and opted on a case-by-case basis which increased the likelihood of inconsistent decision making.
Student communications
The university acknowledged shortcomings in award outcome communications in the internal investigation. Currently each school uses a series of local templates to communicate award or progression outcomes to students but the team was made aware that a project co-created with students will create new format and content of outcome and progression letters. The letters are to include next steps are communicated consistently and include appropriate signposting to wellbeing and support services.
The university also now has an institutional commitment to “compassionate communication,” following the Academic Registrar’s Council framework. The TPR team found no evidence of the extent of the coverage of the framework and staff who met with the team had limited awareness of the training.
There was an emphasis on the importance of considering the tone, timing, content and speed of communications. The team recommended a coordinated approach to embedding these principles across all relevant academic and professional service areas to ensure consistency of practice. This is a classic example of a policy, no matter how good it might be, not being effective if monitoring, evaluation and enforcement isn’t built in.
Student engagement
In terms of the proposed changes within the scope of the concern, the team asked to what extent they’ve engaged with students. The university informed student representatives at the Student Representative Council (SRC) of the tragic circumstances that led to the internal investigations and any movement on policy was done with student reps or on committees where they were present.
For the code of assessment and guide, despite being a staff-facing document there are aspects which are meant to be accessible to students. Some students highlighted that elements of it were unclear and raised a lack of clarity on how their grade point average was calculated. Staff from the advice centre at the SRC also highlighted the most common area of student confusion was understanding how grades are calculated. How students’ grades and overall classification is calculated is often a topic of the hidden curriculum and requires work to make it more accessible – those who know how the system works can better play it.
Assessment regulations therefore need to be made accessible to students, using a handbook, for example. The TPR team recommended that the institution co-designs guidance with students to ensure critical elements of assessment regulations are communicated to students in an accessible, digestible and valuable way.
When it comes to the new EC policy the university should consider a variety of approaches to make students aware of the support and consider how other student-facing policies can be implemented using similar initiatives.
The team recognised the university’s commitment to student representation and recommended they continue to evolve their approach to student voice that ranges from consultative to collaborative across all levels of the institution.
What next?
The university will complete an action plan based on the report’s recommendations which will be monitored by the QAA. The university will be required to notify the QAA when actions are complete with evidence.
There’s lots of recommendations across the report that will likely reflect asks of SUs and their officers. What this report does is position these as minimum standards to prevent risks to academic standards and the quality of the student experience which in turn sets new standards for the sector to follow.
SUs want to look at how the university is responding to the findings and to what extent they are compliant with existing assessment regulations. Things like inconsistent processes, poor record-keeping and maladministered exam boards should be ringing alarm bells. And as the report emphasises, these changes need making immediately, not on a two or three year time scale.
For frameworks like the compassionate comms work, the materials existed at Glasgow but without the necessary steps in place to ensure anyone actually used them. How many common misconceptions are there when it comes to assessment regulations, how do they vary across schools or faculties and to what extent is this leading to variable practice.
And for SUs lobbying on extenuating circumstance policies, how can it be more joined up, accessible and integrated with wellbeing strategies to ensure students can access and be signposted to timely support.
Read more
Scottish Quality Concerns Scheme: Targeted Peer Review University of Glasgow
Scotland orders sector-wide assessment review after Glasgow QAA findings
Who has the time to care – or feel cared for?
We’ve read every university’s policy on extensions and late submission. Here’s what we found
Students taking resits need specific support
From playground to lecture hall – working with schools to support wellbeing throughout education
