Benchmarking that compares something real

Against a comparable provider, on a defined measure.

Benchmarking is expected and is frequently satisfied by citing sector averages, which compares a specific course to an aggregate of everything and establishes very little.

Useful benchmarking is narrow: a comparable course at a comparable provider, on a defined measure, with the comparison documented including what differs between the two contexts. That is harder to arrange and it produces information.

Reciprocal arrangements work best, since a provider willing to share its data will want something in return, and the resulting relationship supports moderation and external review as well.

The measures worth comparing are the ones about student outcomes rather than inputs: completion, progression, results distribution and destination. Comparing entry standards or resourcing tells you about the institutions rather than about the teaching.

Where a comparison is unfavourable, documenting it and what followed is considerably stronger evidence of a functioning quality system than a benchmark that showed no difference.

The other benchmarking difficulty is finding a genuine comparator. Providers frequently compare against institutions of a different size, mission and intake, which produces a difference that explains itself and teaches nothing. A close comparator is harder to find and is the only kind worth the effort.