With the onset of student fees, universities are placing more emphasis on student progression and outcomes. This has led to the fear of “grade inflation” as universities try to gain a competitive advantage by emphasising positive student metrics. Consequently, the proportion of “good” degrees (Firsts and upper second class) awarded has greatly increased so that now 75% of all students graduate with a “good” degree. From 1994/95 to 2011/12 “good” degrees awarded increased by 113% (Bachan, 2017). As a corollary to this increase a decline in academic standards and student effort has been reported. In terms of student effort the TESTA project (Transforming the Student Experience Through Assessment) has been influential in reducing summative coursework within many programmes. Much of the theoretical and intellectual justification for the TESTA project comes from Graham Gibbs who has demonstrated that students strategically game the system and adopt surface learning strategies to progress. Gibbs argues cogently that current assessment practices are neither effective for student learning nor efficient in terms of staff workloads. At the same time Gibbs has emphasised the concept of “time on task” (Chickering and Gamson, 1987). Here student effort is positively correlated to achievement. However, the move to reduce summative assessment might reduce student effort with negative impacts on student attainment. The use of institutional algorithms allows students to achieve higher degree classifications than they might have previously (Yorke et al, 2008). Thus, degree classifications currently do not provide a sound basis for indicating the quality of educational outcomes at UK institutions (House of Commons, 2009). Rather they are a way of enhancing an institution’s overall ‘status’. In the current environment then can “real” student attainment changes be monitored? Here we use the pedagogical gold standard of a standardised national test to evaluate the impact of a perceived decline in student effort on attainment. Pharmacy students in the UK undertake a year in practice preparing for their pre-registration exam. How effectively individual Schools of Pharmacy prepare their students for this exam can therefore be indirectly measured. Our hypothesis is that Schools of Pharmacy that teach their programmes via more, but smaller modules (in terms of academic credits) will result in students doing more work, resulting in better outcomes in the national exam. Indeed, those courses that taught using more modules per year achieved higher average student marks for their students than those teaching via fewer modules (89.3 ± 1.8 versus 83.6 ± 1.6% respectively; p< 0.05). Whilst the move to improve student learning through appropriate assessment should be a primary concern of all involved in UK HE teaching these results indicate that thought must be used to ensure that such changes are not detrimental to students.