Abstract
Following a QAA review of Psychology at Oxford Brookes University in 1999, the Psychology Department attempted to respond to the reviewer's comment that insufficient first class degrees were being awarded. In attempting to locate the source of the problem, intake profile, the assessment scheme, teaching and learning methods, and resources were systematically examined. None of these things appeared to explain why rates of first class award should be unusually low. Finally the Department decided to reconsider the validity of the reviewer's complaint. Statistical comparison with rates of first class awards in other Departments at Oxford Brookes, and with UK Psychology Departments as a whole, showed that first rates in the Psychology Department did not differ from either reference group. An analysis of published QAA reports of UK Psychology Departments showed that nine departments were criticised for an excessively low first rate. Some uncriticised departments had lower first rates than others amongst the rebuked, and some rebuked departments awarded more firsts than those passing unremarked. It is concluded that QAA review of award frequency in Psychology was inconsistent and vulnerable to bias. Suggestions are made for improvement including the use of statistical methods to justify quantitative conclusions, and training reviewers to take into account known sources of bias.