How module marks, end of year and College marks are calculated To provide an explanation of how it works in SITS To look at how we go forward, given feedback from individual members of academic staff and comments at Senate Consider the impact on academic standards

Key regulatory and policy points The pass mark for UG is 40.0% except L7 modules and MBBS/DBS where it is 50.0% Discretion can operate within 1% or 2% of the classification boundary. Students are required to pass all modules for some UG awards, 270 credit points for the majority of UG bachelor awards and 180 credit points for PG programmes although up to 30 can be condoned.

Module marks Assessment scheme for the module is set up in the Academic Model according to the approved module outline. Individual marks are entered into MySIS. SITS calculates the module mark, based on the approved assessment scheme. It is the result of the calculation that creates a number to one decimal point, NOT a requirement that staff mark to one decimal point.

Example A simple assessment scheme would be two items of coursework and an examination weighted 15:15:70. Marks are CW 47 and 42,Exam 36 Module mark calculated as (47x0.15) + (42x0.15) + (36x0.70) = = which is the mark that sits behind what is seen in MySIS. In MySiS, this is rounded to 38.6

Key points to consider By rounding the module mark to the nearest integer, we effectively move the pass mark to 39.5 or At present they are and By rounding to the integer, a student with 39.4 would seek their mark rounded down to 39. The rounded mark and the College mark might drift if a student has a number of marks that round to 40 but a College mark that determines a different classification.

Key points continued Some academic staff argue that students marks should not be measured so finely as marking is not accurate. Other academic staff feel that the accurate picture is completely transparent and the decimal points did not create issues. Some academic schools/institutes discourage marks at the boundary, particularly the pass fail boundary (eg give 37 not 39) however this does not address the weighted average issue. Other academic schools/institutes recognise that the weighting of marks results in module marks at the boundary so feel that this allows for accurate marking ie if it is worth 39, give 39.

More key points The question of the marks to one decimal place only affected about 2 students out of the 1000s who had progression and awards considered. If we changed the approach, we are likely to encounter a different set of issues because of marks rounding down or arguments that 39.4 is close to a pass mark of Queen Mary, unlike many other universities nowadays, allows for the use of discretion in most of its classification schemes. This is used to the benefit of many students and is in recognition that it is impossible always to be exactly accurate in marking.

And final points Queen Mary also allows for failure or condoning of failure in many of its award schemes which again benefits many students. Many other universities require students to pass everything. Prior to the introduction of SITS and the modelling of module regulations/assessment schemes in the system, there were a range of approaches taken across QM. While not all staff agree with the approach adopted, it follows the standard approach to the College mark and is consistent and transparent.

Conclusion There is virtually no impact on the overall standards of degrees and marks are a true reflection of student achievement. On balance, the provisions for the use of discretion create flexibility for SEBs and benefit students to a greater extent than adopting a different system for recording and calculating marks. Ultimately, the line has to be drawn somewhere to determine thresholds, particularly the pass/fail threshold. Inevitably, with the large numbers of students, some will fall just below any given threshold. We should keep the issue under review and see if problems arise in the second year of operation.