Reduced fairness and increased subjectivity

• Traditional marking systems often amplify personal bias and subjective interpretation, as assessors rely on their own preferences or interpretations of vague rubrics. This can result in inconsistent, unreliable decisions and unfairly disadvantage some applicants.
• Candidates from non-traditional backgrounds or with unconventional portfolios may be excluded, reducing access and diversity within the program.

Lower validity and creativity suppression

• Analytical, “tick-box” approaches fragment portfolios into isolated criteria, missing the holistic, aesthetic, and innovative qualities Caine College values in creative disciplines. As a result, portfolios that demonstrate true creative potential, originality, or unconventional approaches risk being overlooked in favour of formulaic submissions.
• Faculty may become dissatisfied with assessment processes that do not reflect their professional judgment or the complexity of artistic work, leading to disengagement.

Compromised reputation and outcomes

• Persistent bias and lack of reliability can damage Caine College’s reputation for equity, integrity, and excellence in creative arts education.
• Students selected through flawed traditional assessments may not represent the full spectrum of talent, potentially impacting future league tables, graduate outcomes, and program prestige.

Increased administrative burden

• Traditional assessments require extensive time, standardisation, and moderation without guaranteeing fairer or more reliable results.
• Scaling admissions processes as program demand grows becomes increasingly difficult with face-to-face interviews and labour-intensive portforeviews.

Stagnation in assessment innovation

• By not embracing more dynamic and evidence-based methods like RM Compare, the college risks missing out on the benefits of emerging best practices in creative assessment, hindering its ability to lead in educational innovation.

Summary

Sticking with traditional assessment methods creates risk of bias, reduced creativity, inefficiency, and reputational harm-whereas Comparative Judgement with RM Compare delivers greater fairness, validity, and alignment with the values of art and design education.

Increased reliability and objectivity

• Each portfolio is judged multiple times by different assessors, reducing the influence of individual bias and “rogue” judgments, leading to consistently high reliability.
• Anonymised assessment further mitigates unconscious bias, ensuring decisions are based solely on portfolio quality rather than candidate identity.

Greater validity and breadth

• The approach frees assessors from restrictive rubrics, allowing them to holistically evaluate a candidate’s true level of ability and creativity across diverse media, which is essential in design disciplines.
• Comparative Judgement captures a broader range of skills and innovation, supporting a more valid assessment of talent.

Efficiency and scalability

• The process is faster than traditional grading; assessors quickly identify which work is better in a series of paired comparisons, and an algorithm efficiently computes a reliable rank order.
• There’s less need for time-consuming standardisation meetings, as consensus is built through the judging process itself.

Enhanced feedback and engagement

• Candidates and faculty gain clearer feedback on strengths and areas for improvement through relative ranking, not just scores.
• The process supports reflective practice among assessors, deepening their understanding of standards and quality.

Summary

In summary, Comparative Judgement via RM Compare delivers a more fair, valid, reliable, and efficient way to allocate places in creative, competitive programmes by focusing on authentic, expert-led comparison rather than rigid marking schemes.