These conventions and procedures apply to:
The Department's Assessment Procedures are governed by the University Undergraduate Degree Awards: Assessment Procedures and the Taught Postgraduate Degrees and Awards Assessment Procedures (as applicable) in addition to the following regulations, which have been approved by the the Faculty of Taught Programmes.
Modules excluded from the standard condonement scheme are specified in Section 10 of the applicable full Programme Specification. In identifying modules to be condoned, (see Consequences of Failure, below) the Department will select the failed modules with the highest marks but give priority to any modules which have no referred assessment available.
A minimum average of 50% at stage 2 is required to remain on any MPhys programme -- an MPhys student who accumulates 120 credits in the stage 2 assessment but fails to achieve a 50% average will be required to transfer to a BSc programme for which he/she is qualified.
A minimum average of 60% at stage 2 is required to remain on an MPhys programme with North American, Australian or New Zealand Study -- a student on one of these programmes who accumulates 120 credits in the stage 2 assessment but fails to achieve a 60% average will be required to transfer to an MPhys programme for which he/she is qualified (if the 50% minimum requirement for other MPhys programmes is satisfied -- see above) or to a BSc programme for which he/she is qualified.
A minimum average of 60% at stage 2, and marks of at least 50% in the modules (PHY2002, PHY2009 and PHY2201) which are direct pre-requisites to the three self-study modules is required to remain on an MPhys programme with Professional Experience. A student on one of these programmes who accumulates 120 credits in the stage 2 assessment but fails to satisfy the above requirements will be required to transfer to another programme for which he/she is qualified.
[Note: The 50% or 60% minimum average requirements apply to the marks available to the Board of Examiners for Stage 2 in June; i.e., any hypothetical increase in the average mark which may be obtained in a future referred assessment is discounted. A mark obtained after Stage 2 has been repeated - for reasons of unsatisfactory academic performance - is also discounted.]
A minimum average of 55% at stage 2 is required to remain on any MPhys programme -- an MPhys student who accumulates 120 credits in the stage 2 assessment but fails to achieve a 55% average will be required to transfer to a BSc programme for which he/she is qualified.
A minimum average of 60% at stage 2 is required to remain on an MPhys programme with North American, Australian or New Zealand Study -- a student on one of these programmes who accumulates 120 credits in the stage 2 assessment but fails to achieve a 60% average will be required to transfer to an MPhys programme for which he/she is qualified (if the 55% minimum requirement for other MPhys programmes is satisfied -- see above) or to a BSc programme for which he/she is qualified.
A minimum average of 60% at stage 2, and marks of at least 50% in the modules (PHY2021 and PHY2023) which are direct pre-requisites to the self-study modules is required to remain on an MPhys programme with Professional Experience. A student on one of these programmes who accumulates 120 credits in the stage 2 assessment but fails to satisfy the above requirements will be required to transfer to another programme for which he/she is qualified.
[Note: The 55% or 60% minimum average requirements apply to the marks available to the Board of Examiners for Stage 2 in June; i.e., any hypothetical increase in the average mark which may be obtained in a future referred assessment is discounted. A mark obtained after Stage 2 has been repeated - for reasons of unsatisfactory academic performance - is also discounted.]
Referred examinations will only be available in PHYM425 and those other modules for which the original assessment includes an examination component - this information is given in individual module descriptions.
The credit attached to modules will generate the assessment weighting - i.e. a 30-credit module would contribute one-quarter of the total marks for the stage of the programme in which it is taken.
The marks achieved at stage 1 (for the first 120 credits of a programme) will not count towards classification or award unless the programme in question leads to an undergraduate Certificate. However, marks for level 1 modules may count towards classification or award if part of a longer set of core modules or if such modules are taken at later stages which do count towards classification or award.
The following tables specify how the marks achieved at various stages are combined in order to classify awards. The weightings vary between programmes to ensure that the awards reflect an appropriate balance of academic and practical/project work.
| Programmes | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPhys Physics with European Study | 0.2857 | 0.1429 | 0.5714 |
| Other MPhys Physics programmes with Study Abroad | 0.2222 | 0.3333 | 0.4444 |
| MPhys Physics with Professional Experience | 0.2222 | 0.3333 | 0.4444 |
| Other MPhys programmes | 0.2222 | 0.3333 | 0.4444 |
| Programmes | Stage 2 | Stage 3 |
|---|---|---|
| All Single Honours BSc awards in Physics | 0.3333 | 0.6667 |
| All Combined Honours BSc awards in Mathematics/Physics | 0.3333 | 0.6667 |
Classification will be based on the student's overall average marks, weighted as described above, at stages 2, 3 and (where appropriate) 4.
The following rules should be applied in descending order, starting at the Pass / Fail threshold, so that fail students are excluded from further consideration.
The general principles underpinning assessment and feedback in the Department are:
The Department's procedures for marking assessed work are based on University policy. Normally, assessments have detailed mark schemes, prepared as part of the setting procedure. In such cases, second marking (see below) may be replaced by checking, q.v.. The following safeguards apply to the assessment of scripts that are not subsequently returned to and/or discussed with the student.
Every examination script and other substantial assignment should be subject to at least one of the following assessment strategies:
Additionally:
In the event that two markers involved in second, or double blind marking, are unable to agree a mark for a piece of work a third academic will be appointed to arbitrate. For modules, such as laboratories, where several markers are involved it is the responsibility of the first named instructor on the module description to brief/train the individual markers and then monitor their marking trends to ensure that students are treated equitably.
| Term | Definition | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Second Marking | A piece of work is marked by one person, the mark and comments are then reviewed by a second marker and a final mark is agreed between the two. | |
| Double Marking | Can mean either 'second marking' or 'double blind marking' depending on context. | Avoid using this ambiguous term. |
| Double Blind Marking | Two markers assess a piece of work and record their comments and marks independently and in ignorance of the views of each other. The markers then confer and jointly compile a final agreed set of marks. | |
| Moderation | The process by which marks and comments are checked against marking criteria to ensure that the mark awarded is appropriate. | Adjustments to sets of marks arising from moderation should be rare and will normally trigger a review of marking criteria and/or learning outcomes. |
| Checking | The process for ensuring that every page of a script has been marked, and that the marks have been correctly processed. | Refer to Marking and Checking Examination Scripts for details. |
The Department supports the University's Assessment and Feedback Strategy as follows:
If a student has good reason to believe that the mark awarded for a summative examination is in error they should raise the matter with their tutor. If, following a discussion with their tutor they still believe that the mark is significantly in error they should complete a 'Transcript Query Form' and request, giving reasons, that their script is independently reviewed. The outcome of the review will be a brief written explanation of how the mark awarded was arrived at. Reviews will be conducted by experienced members of staff nominated by the Head of Discipline. Such a review may result in the mark being confirmed, raised or lowered.
The mark sheets submitted to Boards of Examiners should record the following information for each candidate:
In addition, the Board will be provided with relevant summary statistics for modules and programmes.
The student record system will always record the actual numerical marks obtained for modules. Marks for modules which have been raised by the Board of Examiners, e.g. to adjust for underperformance in assessment with mitigating circumstances, will carry an indicator to that effect if either: (a) the adjustment increases the module mark by 5% or more, and/or (b) substitute marks have been used. Marks for referred modules, where 40% is the maximum achievable, will also carry an indicator to specify that the mark has been capped at 40%.
The University appoints external examiners to scrutinise and comment upon the papers, marking, procedures and standards of the degree examination. There is a [University] Code of Good Practice for External Examiners.
On a module-by-module basis, external examiners approve the examination papers, together with the model answers (and/or, where appropriate, other assessment materials). Inspection of samples of marked scripts and continuously assessed work provides a further check of appropriate levels and confirmation of the reliability of the procedures.
At the Examination Board the external examiners may simply confirm that no action is necessary in relation to marks. Alternatively, the external examiners and the Deparment staff may agree that modifications to marks need to be made. These modifications must be for specific reasons (which will be recorded in the minutes of the Examination Board). Apart from instances where individual students have mitigating circumstances, a 'good' reason for adjusting marks will essentially amount to a statement that a particular assessment did not turn out as expected (questions harder/easier than they appeared when set, marking harsher/more lenient than suggested by mark schemes, etc.). Particular scrutiny will be applied to any module which, for a given group of students, produces a failure rate much higher/lower than expected for that group of students. Any adjustment of module marks (if there is a good reason) will normally involve a uniform raising/lowering of marks for a given group of students, so as to give an average module mark in line with the overall average for that group of students on other modules taken (subject to the constraint that the adjustment must be made equally to all students taking the module, irrespective of which stage or programme they are in).
Note: The regulations do not permit adjustment of the classification ranges on the overall mark.
The full cycle of external examiners' reports, issues raised with the College and the College response, as signed off by the Dean of the Faculty of Taught Programmes is available for inspection by all students, and is published on the SSLC ELE page.
The Board of Examiners awards annual prizes. The number, value and criteria for these awards are listed on the following spreadsheets:
The University has policy on disclosure of marks. Complete transcripts, including marks for assessed modules at all levels will be sent to undergraduate finalists by the University Examinations Office during the summer vacation following graduation. Provisional marks, which may be subject to future moderation, will be communicated students according to the published schedule:
Boards of Examiners do not make recommendations about the consequences of failure for individual students (i.e. whether referral, deferral, repeat study or withdrawal should result). This is the responsibility of the College Dean who, after due consultation within the Department, submits recommendations to the Faculty Board. The Department does not normally permit an individual student to repeat the final stage of a programme, or more than one other stage. There is no 'right' to repeat study. However, in normal circumstances, i.e. where there are no mitigating circumstances, the student has complied with the Department's Code of Practice for Teaching and Learning, and appears to have made a serious attempt to achieve a pass in any referred assessment, the recommendations made are as follows:
A student who thinks that their results are incorrect has a right to appeal. The University Student Academic Appeals page is the definitive guide, and the Students' Guild Academic Support Section and will offer advice and help with the process.