The scandal of two-tier degrees Extra time infantilizes students – UnHerd

An analysis published on May 19, 2026, by Paul Sagar argues that the current implementation of academic accommodations has created a two-tier system of degrees, questioning whether identical classifications remain equivalent when the requirements for achieving them differ significantly between students.

The central thesis posits that while accommodations are intended to support students with disabilities, the resulting disparity in expectations and deadlines may undermine the degree’s function as a standardized professional qualification.

The Disparity in Academic Requirements

To illustrate this divergence, Sagar presents two hypothetical cases of students completing the same course of study, both of whom ultimately receive a 2:1 classification.

The first student arrived at university with diagnoses of autism, anxiety, and ADHD. This student operated under a long-standing arrangement that allowed for several significant accommodations:

• Automatic deferral of all deadlines without the requirement for supporting evidence.
• An additional 20% of time for all examinations.
• The ability to rewrite coursework and retake exams without their marks being capped.
• Permission to complete outstanding second-year requirements over the summer while living at home.

Despite these supports, the student continued to struggle with deadlines into the third year. Following an extension period in late August, the student secured enough credits to pass and was awarded a 2:1.

The second student had no diagnosed learning disabilities. Throughout the course, this student received only one deadline extension due to a bout of flu. All other assignments were completed on time, though the student occasionally had to rush work while managing multiple deadlines, which at times negatively impacted their marks. This student was also awarded a 2:1 classification.

Qualification Versus Intelligence

The core of the argument rests on the distinction between a person’s innate intelligence and the nature of an academic degree. Sagar suggests that while a student with accommodations might be as capable as one without, the resulting qualification serves a specific purpose in the professional market.

The analysis argues that a degree is intended to be a qualification—a verified measure of a student’s ability to meet specific standards and deadlines—rather than a simple measure of intelligence.

By allowing one student to bypass the standard constraints of deadlines and mark caps while requiring another to adhere to them strictly, the system creates a scenario where the same grade may represent different levels of achievement or adherence to professional rigor.

The Question of Equivalence

The analysis concludes by questioning the validity of treating these two 2:1 classifications as equivalent. The concern is that if the path to the qualification is fundamentally different, the qualification itself may no longer provide a consistent signal to employers or institutions regarding a candidate’s capabilities.

Sagar notes that it is possible the student receiving accommodations worked harder to achieve their grade than the student who did not, but maintains that the structural difference in how the degrees were earned remains a point of contention for the integrity of the qualification.