The scandal of two-tier degrees

Log In<br>Search

Home

Mission

Newsroom

Our Writers

Watch & Listen

Events

Shop

UnHerd Club

Subscribe

Politics

Culture

Science

Faith

War

Society

UK

US

Europe

Search for:

Home

Mission

Newsroom

Our Writers

Watch & Listen

Events

Shop

UnHerd Club

Subscribe

Log In<br>Select Edition:

Search for:

X Close

The scandal of two-tier degrees Extra time infantilizes students

Degrees aren't always equal. Getty

Degrees aren't always equal. Getty

Paul Sagar

May 20 2026 - 12:00am 7 mins

As the academic year draws to a close, students up and down the country will be receiving their degrees. So, consider two different cases:

Student A arrived at their university with a diagnosis of ADHD, anxiety, and autism. As a result, he had a long-standing arrangement that all deadlines could be automatically deferred without supporting evidence. All exams came with 20% extra time. He could retake these exams without any marks being capped — and rewrite his coursework too. Despite all this, Student A didn’t manage to complete requirements by the end of second year. He was therefore allowed to finish off his outstanding pieces of work while living at home with mum and dad over the summer. When he returned in third year, he still struggled to make deadlines. After delaying final submission of work via an extension period in late August, he eventually had enough credits to pass the year — and was awarded a 2:1 classification.

Student B took the same course as Student A, but had no diagnosed learning disabilities. During her second year she received one deadline extension after a nasty bout of flu, but other than that, she completed all her assignments on time. Sometimes this meant that she had to rush when juggling deadlines; her marks occasionally suffered. She too was awarded a 2:1 classification.

My question is: should these 2:1s be considered equivalent? To my mind, there are reasons to think not.

Now, it could well be that Student A is just as capable as Student B and, despite all the accommodations, worked harder to get his 2:1 than she did. We don’t need to be dismissive cynics here. (That said, it could have been the other way around).

Nevertheless, a degree is a qualification, and not simply a measure of intelligence. Intelligence is (probably) the most important thing that a degree requires, at least in traditional academic subjects. But a degree also signals that one can organize that intelligence under pressure. It indicates that one has cultivated, improved, and refined one’s abilities over several years, working within agreed-upon constraints. This doesn’t mean that we should never support students. Independence, like intelligence, can be cultivated, and both benefit from guidance. But a degree should be a combination and reflection of both.

Now, it might be objected that this isn’t fair on Student A. If he hadn’t had his accommodations, he wouldn’t have been able to complete his degree! He was always bright enough — he just needed (a lot) more time, and (a lot) more support. Surely it is only fair to provide that, precisely because of different starting needs?

This ideology — that of fairness — is the dominant one in universities today. Enormous bureaucracies exist to facilitate, entrench, and maintain it. And if you think my hypothetical Student A is an outlier, think again. UK academics will confirm that many, many students fit this description. (We have the MS Teams invitations, the personal tutor emails, the resubmitted coursework, to prove it.) So what’s my problem? Well, I think that good intentions have paved the way to a situation that benefits nobody.

“I think that good intentions have paved the way to a situation that benefits nobody.”

First off, if we’re going to talk about fairness, what about fairness to Student B? She might point out that if she had received more time — if she had been able to push back and stagger deadlines — then she could have performed better in her final classification. Now, you might counter that the accommodations extended to Student A were merely a way of “leveling the playing field” — compensating for an unfair disadvantage. But ought Student B to accept this?

I’m doubtful. Let’s leave aside the very real fact that some students (and their parents) are taking advantage of expanded medical diagnoses precisely to gain competitive advantages. Let’s instead grant that Student A is not gaming the system and genuinely couldn’t complete his degree without extensive accommodations. Is Student B making a mistake if she replies: “Well, if A can’t finish on time, under the same general constraints as other students like me — why should he get a degree?” To put it bluntly, I don’t think so: the two are no longer running the same race. And if they are not running the same race, they shouldn’t get the same medal.

That paragraph will ruffle feathers. As a university teacher, shouldn’t my commitment be to the intrinsic value of...