Taught Award Regulations Progression rules and examining boards

Progression rules Section 6.3.2 of Academic Quality Handbook 2017/18 (Chapter 6) Processing marks (Section 6.3.2.2) Calculations carried out by system Module mark to the nearest whole number for deciding whether or not a student has passed and for all other progression related decisions including condonement and in all calculations for award classification

Progression rules General progression rules (section 6.3.2.3) Pass mark is 40% must attempt every component in order to pass; where outcome is grade – Pass or better counts as at least 40%. Progress where possible Full profile, all modules passed – progress / award Failed modules Condonement

Progression rules Condoned modules (paragraph 6.3.2.3 (4)) Up to 20 credits of failed modules can be condoned at each level of study, subject to following: student has attained minimum of 100 credits at the level of study; failed module(s) not core for programme of study; module mark in failed module is at least 30%; each component has been attempted Credit awarded for condoned module Student may request opportunity to re-sit a condoned module

Progression rules Failure and retrieval (section 6.3.2.4) Maximum number of re-assessments for particular module is two Students who successfully complete some components / modules will normally be re-assessed in the failed components Where student has not made genuine effort to engage with the programme of study and/or has failed to attempt a majority of components in modules within the current Semester, student should not be permitted to be re-assessed and should be required to withdraw. Students unable to complete assessment for acceptable reasons (approved extenuating circumstances) will be allowed to be assessed as if for first time (uncapped)

Undergraduate failure and retrieval Section 6.3.2.4 (3) MSEB may decide the retrieval position of a student who has not reached the end of a level, but has failed completed module(s) and/or has failed to attempt an assessment component of incomplete module(s): Credit equivalent of failed components Default Action Up to 45 credits (or up to 5 components) Re-sit failed components Greater than 45 credits (more than 5 components) Decision on reassessment in some components delayed until student reaches end of level. All modules studied Required to withdraw

Undergraduate failure and retrieval Section 6.3.2.4 (4) At end of level, PAEB will decide the retrieval position : Passed Credit equivalent of failed components Default Action At least 40 credits (full modules) Up to 45 credits (or up to 5 components) Re-sit failed components Greater than 45 credits (more than 5 components) Repeat failed modules or repeat level Less than 40 credits Less than 120 credits (i.e. has passed some modules) 120 credits (all modules) Required to withdraw

Conditional progression Paragraph 6.3.2.4 (4) (a) Student may be permitted to carry forward failure(s) in modules(s) with maximum credit value of 20 failed proportion of credit would equate to maximum of 200 hours; Student allowed to proceed to next level conditionally if: all other modules in level of study have been passed; failed module(s) not core for programme of study. Students must redeem failure or attain equivalent credit in different module

Repeat module / level Student who is required to repeat failed modules must agree to forfeit any marks and credit already achieved in the modules to be repeated; Student who is required to repeat entire level must agree to forfeit any marks and credit already achieved for that level; Defined criteria - as set out in paragraph 6.3.2.4 (9) – must all be satisfied before student is allowed opportunity to repeat module / level.

Master’s: Progression rules: Part I General progression rules (section 6.8.3) Pass mark is 50% must attempt every component in order to pass.

Master’s: Progression rules: Part I Condoned modules (paragraph 6.8.3 (3)) Up to 20 credits of failed modules can be condoned at Part I, subject to following: student had attained minimum of 100 credits; failed module(s) not core for programme of study; overall mark for Part I is at least 50%; module mark in failed module is at least 45%; each component has been attempted Credit awarded for condoned module Student may request opportunity to re-sit a condoned module

Master’s: Progression rules: Part I Failure and retrieval (Section 6.8.3.1) Maximum number of re-assessments for particular module is one Students who successfully complete some components / modules will normally be re-assessed in the failed components Where student has not made genuine effort to engage with the programme of study and/or has failed to attempt a majority of components in modules within the current Semester, student should not be permitted to be re-assessed and should be required to withdraw. Students unable to complete assessment for acceptable reasons (approved extenuating circumstances) will be allowed to be assessed as if for first time (uncapped)

Master’s: Part II: Dissertation Dissertation (Section 6.8.4) All dissertations will be independently assessed by at least two internal examiners; Pass mark is 50%; Candidates who fail the dissertation, may be permitted to submit a dissertation on one further occasion, not more than twelve months from the original deadline;

Extenuating Circumstances Late submission: Work submitted up 1 week late is marked in the normal way and then capped (at 40% or 50% for Master’s) Work is not accepted more than 1 week after the submission deadline Student may claim extenuating circumstances Claim assessed (may be referred to Extenuating Circumstances Panel) and decision (uphold or reject) made If upheld, late penalty lifted or student re-assessed without incurring any additional penalty

Examining Boards Section 7.15 of Academic Quality Handbook 2017/18 (Chapter 7) Two tier structure for formal Examining Boards Initial Examining Boards (IEB) Progression/Award Examining Boards (PAEB) All module external examiners are expected to contribute to the appropriate IEB. At least one Procedural External Examiner must be appointed to attend each PAEB in person

Initial Examining Board Progression/Award Examining Board

Initial Examining Board (IEB) Section 7.15.3 Organised at Faculty or School level; Meet prior to PAEB to consider and provisionally agree outcomes for each module and for each student and to agree formal recommendations for the PAEB

Notes on IEB Module external examiner input is not normally required for decisions that do not contribute to award outcomes, for example, Level 4 of an Honours Degree programme A Progression and Award Recommendation Form (Appendix GA26) showing the agreed recommendation for each student must be completed after the IEB and signed by the Chair and the module external examiner as evidence of the formal endorsement for all recommendations relating to student progression and award by the module external examiner

Progression/Award Examining Board (PAEB) Section 7.15.4 Organised at University or Faculty level (in exceptional circumstances Senate may act in the capacity of a PAEB); Normally meet at end of academic year to determine progression and award outcomes Receive formal external examiner endorsement of provisional outcomes (Appendix GA26)

Mid-sessional and Re-assessment Examining Boards Section 7.15.5 These are PAEBs which meet at specific times in the academic year and have specific additional Terms of Reference Appropriate IEB must meet prior to MSEB or RAEB where progression/award decisions are made based on recommendations of the relevant IEB with regard to student progression and award as detailed by the Progression and Award Recommendation Form (Appendix GA26).

Externals and MSEB / RAEB Module external examiners are not normally expected to attend the relevant IEB in person.

Degree classifications For Honours degrees (Section 6.3.4) 6.3.4 (1) The University determines the final degree classification based on the exit velocity of a student as well as the student’s performance over time. 6.3.4 (2) Level 5 and Level 6 modules may contribute to the classification of degrees. The actual classification that is awarded to a student shall be determined by calculating the final overall average mark by applying whichever of the two classification methods is more beneficial to the student. 6.3.4 (4) Final degree classification determined by final overall average mark

Degree classifications 6.3.4.1 Method One 6.3.4.1 (1) The final overall average mark will be calculated by using the following formula: Best marks in 100 credits at Level 6 modules – weighted 2. Best marks in 100 credits at Level 5 modules – weighted 1. 6.3.4.1 (2) Where lowest mark in Level occurs in a module with a credit value of more than 20, then the mark will be included in the calculation of the overall average for a proportion of the credit value such that marks for 100 credits are still used. 6.3.4.1 (3) If some modules graded, final overall average mark is based only on those modules for which marks have been awarded.

Degree classifications 6.3.4.2 Method Two 6.3.4.2 (1) The final overall average mark will be calculated based on the best marks in 100 credits of Level 6 modules. 6.3.4.2 (2) Where lowest mark in Level occurs in a module with a credit value of more than 20, then the mark will be included in the calculation of the overall average for a proportion of the credit value such that marks for 100 credits are still used. 6.3.4.2 (3) If some modules graded, final overall average mark is based only on those modules for which marks have been awarded.

Degree classifications Paragraph 6.3.4 (4) Classification boundaries: Class I: 70% and above Class II (i): 60 up to but not including 70% Class II (ii): 50 up to but not including 60% Class III: 40 up to but not including 50% Pass Degree: at least 35%

Master’s classifications 6.8.2 (4) …average mark for Part I will be calculated based on the best marks in 100 credits of Level 7 modules. Where lowest mark in Level occurs in a module with a credit value of more than 20, then the mark will be included in the calculation of the overall average for a proportion of the credit value such that marks for 100 credits are still used.

Master’s final classifications Distinction In order to qualify for a Master’s Degree with Distinction, candidates must achieve an overall weighted average of not less than 70%, having achieved a final mark of not less than 60% in Part I and not less than 70% in Part II. Merit In order to qualify for a Master’s Degree with Merit, candidates must achieve an overall weighted average of not less than 60% having achieved a final mark of not less than 50% in Part I and not less than 60% in Part II.

Classifications for postgraduate awards Distinction – Merit – Pass 6.9.2 (3) Postgraduate Certificate (page 91) Best marks in 50 credits at Level 7 6.9.3 (3) Postgraduate Diploma (page 92) Best marks in 100 credits at Level 7

Borderline cases For Honours degrees (Section 6.3.4.3) 6.3.4.3 (1) A student can be considered as borderline if his/her final overall average mark is no more than 2 percentage points below a classification boundary. 6.3.4.3 (2) Exit velocity principle For a borderline student, the result is deemed to be in the upper of the two classifications surrounding the border if at least half the Level 6 credits used to calculate the final overall average mark were awarded rounded marks that are above the border.

Master’s: Borderline cases Considered borderline if final overall average mark is no more than 2 percentage points below a classification boundary. The result is deemed to be in the upper of the two classifications surrounding the border if at least half the credits used to calculate the final overall average mark were awarded rounded marks that are above the border.

Unfair Practice It is unfair practice to commit any act, intentional or otherwise, whereby a person may obtain for himself/herself or for another, an unpermitted advantage, which may or may not lead to a higher mark or grade than his/her abilities would otherwise secure.

Allegations of unfair practice If student accepts allegation, then appropriate penalty (as indicated by the Unfair Practice Guidelines and Penalties) applied. If student denies allegation, then a Panel of Inquiry will be established to consider allegation. If Panel finds that the allegation has been substantiated, then appropriate penalty (as indicated by the Unfair Practice Guidelines and Penalties) applied.

Penalties for Unfair Practice Points Penalty 240-329 Formal warning letter (further offences will be repeat offences) 330 – 424 Component awarded mark of 0% (fail) 425 – 524 All components in module awarded mark of 0% (fail) 525 – 559 Student expelled from University (retains credit previously gained) 560+ Student expelled from University (loses all credit from programme)

Action following penalty Appropriate Examining Board informed of the decision and the penalty applied to enable the Examining Board to determine the student’s overall result and, where appropriate retrieval position