ABSTRACT
Credit-based systems do not have to be modular but many are. Classical modularism insofar as it relates to credit accumulation, comes in a number of forms. In its most pure form it provides a single standard framework which is embedded right across the institution. Whatever the academic discipline concerned, deviation from the standard is carefully controlled. In this classical form modules will be the same size measured in notional hours; they will be delivered within a common time frame, usually either a semester or term; they will be assessed within the time frame of the module itself and on the basis of common principles relating to assessment criteria, grades and regulations. Since, under this classical model, students have potential access to modules from different parts of the university and can in principle mix different subject elements (sociology with English), the differences between the diverse academic and operational cultures, so often implicit in university life, soon become exposed. This is one of the real dilemmas of modularity and credit. The many untested presuppositions of academics in their everyday professional lives that have been subterranean for centuries are brought to the surface in CBMS and challenged, not by students but by academics in other disciplines who hold different taken for granted suppositions about the nature of the HE world. We would argue that this is a welcome, but long overdue, development and should not be seen as a criticism of CBMS.
