Women are less likely than men to achieve first-class degrees at Oxbridge than at other universities due to “combative and confrontational” teaching styles, examination-based assessments, and a lack of female representation, according to a new report.

The report, which was published by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), revealed that basing overall grades on final-year examination-based assessment methods rather than coursework disadvantages women because they are “less likely to take risks,” and “are impacted by Premenstrual Syndrome”.

The lack of female representation in many subjects’ student cohort and teaching staff, especially in STEM subjects, was also identified as a cause. A study of female students revealed that the supervision system contributed to female disadvantage as their efforts to contribute to discussions were undermined by male students.

At Cambridge, Theology had the highest gender awarding gap, at 43 percentage points in 2023/24, whereas Oxford’s largest disparity was a 29 percentage point gap in Classics in 2021/22. This is in contrast to the higher education sector as a whole, in which social sciences are the only subject group where men outperform women at a first-class level, with a 0.9 percentage point gap.

Theology has had the largest gap on average at Cambridge over the last decade, with a 20.6 percentage point difference, followed by Mathematics (20.1) and Archaeology (15.7).

The only degrees in which more women were awarded firsts than men were found to be Manufacturing Engineering, Classics, and Modern and Medieval Languages (MML).

The report asserts that the first-class awarding gap is a “significant and unfair disadvantage for female students and must be addressed to give women from Oxford and Cambridge fairer labour market outcomes, including for women intending to pursue academic careers.”

It recommends the universities should enact “bold reforms” and an “overhaul” of assessment methods, including reconsidering the balance of coursework to examinations and the scaffolding of question papers. However, it states any changes should “refrain from scaling back the rigour of assessment methods” and not “dumb down” assessments, but reconsider what skills are assessed.

Oxford and Cambridge should “ask themselves what it means to achieve a first-class degree in the current academic climate and whether the grading system they are currently using stands up against the need to offer equal opportunity to all,” the report says.

This comes after Cambridge University came under fire for excluding the gender awarding gap from its Access and Participation Plan (APP) in May, contrary to promises made to the Students’ Union. Despite the University’s assurances that they had been “carrying out extensive research” into the gap, and their “commitment to understand, and address, the causes,” the HEPI report states there has been “little external indication” that the awarding gap is being addressed in Cambridge, and this “extensive research […] remains to be seen publicly.”

In October, Varsity found that some Cambridge courses have an awarding gap as high as 17 points in end-of-year exams, with the average male student receiving 71 compared to a 66 point average for female students. For Theology students taking Part IIB, the average male student received 71, compared to 66 for female students.

Famke Veenstra-Ashmore, author of the report and former Editor- in-Chief of Varsity, stated that women at Oxbridge “still face significant institutional barriers to the highest levels of academic achievement.”

While she believes “the University is committed to understanding and addressing the gap […] the scale of such work is significant and we currently lack any proper mechanisms to hold them to account while doing this work. I would like to see the University visibly engage with more students on the issue, as internal analysis of data can only show/do so much.”

Responding to the report, the pro-vice-chancellor for Education, Professor Bhaskar Vira, stated: “The University is investigating possible causes for the awarding gap in First Class degrees, including variation across subject and time. This is also being examined as part of our current teaching review.”

He continued, stating the University’s findings “suggest that there is no single cause, and while there are examples of progress in some parts of the University, more remains to be done. We will make sure this research is visible and share the lessons we learn. This will contribute to an action plan being set up to address the issue.”

Veenstra-Ashmore responded that “the pro-vice-chancellor has been very constructive in recognising that research should be shared. However, I would like to see the University fund such research more extensively, as the bulk of this work should not be done by external researchers like me.”

She stated the subjects in which progress has been made, like Geography, are where “female representation […] is already good. The University needs to investigate the reasons for progress in certain subjects and see what they can learn from — and not rest on their laurels.”

“There is evidence that progress has been made in some subjects, such as Geography. However, these are subjects where female representation (at least in the cohort) is already good. The University needs to investigate the reasons for progress in certain subjects and see what they can learn from — and not rest on their laurels,” she continued.