Guidelines for providing a rating to the Board of Examiners (August 2010) /
1. / This document is one of a number of guidance documents for schools on the management of the PEC processes – see This document details the PEC Committee recommended ratings and sample minutes.
2. / The procedure, in brief, is as follows:
a)The Chair of the Board of Examiners ensures that students are aware of the requirement to submit evidence detailing any personal extenuating circumstances. This may be done in a variety of ways, including messages on Blackboard, notice in handbooks, notices in schools, etc. However, the minimum expectation is an e-mail communication to all students at least two weeks before the date set for the PEC Committee meeting. The email should detail: the need for students to advise of circumstances that may have affected their performance, the location of the form on the University’s internal website; the deadline for submission of forms; the arrangements for receiving the forms within the school; the recommendation that students inform their tutor that they are making a submission to the PEC Committee and, if the student so wishes, to make his/her tutor aware of their circumstances. The email should also advise that claims relating to personal circumstances made after results are known are not normally considered.
b)The secretary of the PEC Committee should ensure that an accurate record is maintained of those cases considered and that all forms are logged.
c)The PEC Committee meets to consider each case that has not been dealt with through other practical adjustments (e.g. extensions, deferral of assessments). Each case is rated against a standard scale and a minute made of any pertinent points for each student: see examples below. The PEC Committee minute is for reference, but may be required in the event of an appeal by a student.
d)The secretary of the PEC Committee prepares summary lists and brief recommendations for the Board of Examiners; see examples below. The comment field on the standard form may be used to ensure mitigating circumstances are carried forward to subsequent Examination Boards.
e)If appropriate, following the meeting of the Board of Examiners, the secretary advises tutors and DPDs of any possible submissions to University Concessions Committee (2010/11 only)
3. / The recommended rating scale is as follows:
Rating / Meaning / Explanation and suggestions for the level of discretion to be shown
These are guidelines only. The PEC Committee(and thereby the Board of Examiners) has ultimate discretion to determine whether discretion should be applied or not and how much discretion is appropriate.
NB: Boards of Examiners and PEC Committees may only make decisions within University regulations. Extra-ordinary arrangements (e.g. repeating the Stage as first attempt) require referral to University Concession Committee in 201/11.
0 / No support. / The circumstances are not considered to have been sufficient to adversely affect performance. The student should not be given any discretion by the Board of Examiners other than that which may be afforded to other students who had not made submissions to the PEC Committee
1 / Low support. / The circumstances are considered to be fairly minor but are acknowledged to have had the potential to have a small adverse effect on performance. The Board of Examiners should be prepared to exercise some discretion over and above that shown to other students who had not made submissions to the PEC Committee. It is likely that this discretion would be for a limited number of modules.
For Stage 1 students, the recommendation would be for the Board to use discretion over relevant marginal fails.
For students beyond Stage 1 but pre-final-year, the recommendation would be for the Board to use discretion over relevant marginal fails and/or to note a marginally reduced overall performance not addressed by passing failed modules (and note that passing failed modules has the effect of raising those marks to 40 and thereby, in itself, improves the overall performance). Where the Board notes a marginally reduced overall performance, care should be taken to ensure the information is carried forward for the Board in the student’s final year.
For final-year students, the recommendation would be for the Board to consider whether or not the (fairly minor) circumstances could have adversely affected the final degree classification.
2 / Moderate support. / The circumstances are acknowledged to be significant and are very likely to have had an adverse effect on performance. This may result in a significant number of modules with marginal fails, a limited number of modules with significant fails, and/or a significantly reduced overall performance. However, there will be occasions when the Board does not have enough evidence of achievement to warrant passing failed modules or to award a higher class of degree. On such occasions (and more generally), it might be appropriate for the Board of Examiners to express support for an adjustment to permit the assessment to be retaken as the first attempt. In such cases, the case should be referred back to the PEC Committee with a request to make the necessary adjustment.
For Stage 1 students, the recommendation would normally be for the Board to use discretion over relevant failed modules, where feasible (but the skills and knowledge required for progression should be noted).
For students beyond Stage 1 but pre-final-year, the recommendation would normally be for the Board to use discretion over relevant failed modules (where feasible, but the skills and knowledge required for progression may be an issue) and/or to note a reduced overall performance not addressed by passing failed modules. The recommendation should indicate whether the effect on the overall performance (after passing failed modules) is negligible, marginal or moderate. Where the Board notes a marginally or moderately reduced overall performance, care should be taken to ensure the information is carried forward for the Board in the student’s final year.
For final year students the recommendation would be for the Board to consider whether or not the (moderately serious) circumstances could have adversely affected the final degree classification.
For clarity: if the evidence is sufficiently clear, an award can and should be made by the Board of Examiners, at its discretion.
3 / Strong support. / The circumstances, as a minimum, are severe and probably affect a considerable portion of the academic year or are very severe for a limited portion of the year. The Board of Examiners would be expected to show discretion, if feasible, but, in most cases, it is likely that there would be a recommendation that the student should apply, with support from the Board of Examiners, for a concession to permit the assessment for some or all of the modules to be retaken as the first attempt.
Notwithstanding support for a PEC adjustment, the Board is likely to have to take decisions on passing or failing modules or on degree class, using discretion as appropriate. It is quite possible that the Board will not have enough evidence of achievement to warrant passing failed modules or to award a higher class of degree. The Board would not normally pass a large number of modules with significant fails, but it may do so in exceptional circumstances.
For Stage 1 students, the recommendation would be for the Board to use discretion over relevant failed modules, where feasible (but the skills and knowledge required for progression should be noted).
For students beyond Stage 1 but pre-final-year, the recommendation would be for the Board to use discretion over relevant failed modules (where feasible, but the skills and knowledge required for progression may be an issue) and/or to note a reduced overall performance not addressed by passing failed modules. The recommendation should indicate whether the effect of the overall performance (after passing failed modules) is negligible, marginal, moderate or severe. Where the Board notes a marginally, moderately or severely reduced overall performance, care should be taken to ensure the information is carried forward for the Board in the student’s final year.
For final year students, the Board should consider very carefully whether the circumstances have affected the final degree classification and, if the evidence is sufficiently clear, an award can and should be made by the Board, at its discretion.
4. Sample Minutes
Sample recommendations from the PEC Committees to the Board of Examiners. The following are guidelines only. / Sample minutes for Boards of Examiners, viz items referred from PEC Committees, are as follows. The following are guidelines only.
- A Smith - No support for special discretion.
- A Smith. After compensation, the student failed three modules and with no support from the PEC Committee the Board recorded that all modules should be retaken.
- B Smith - Moderate support for discretion in respect of Semester 1 results. Low support for discretion with regard to Semester 2 results.
- B Smith. Noting the profile of the student's marks and particularly the good performance in the majority of her examinations, in addition to moderate support from the PEC Committee, the Board, by discretion, resolved that the semester 1 module XYZ2346 be deemed a pass.
- C Smith – Moderate support relating to an extended period of difficulty which affected performance in the research project.
- C Smith. The student’s final aggregated mark was 56.4. Taking into consideration the credit value of the research project (30 credits), the moderate support from the PEC Committee and the view of the External Examiner who had given his work particular attention, the Board recommended that the student be awarded an Upper Second Class degree.
- D Smith - Strong support for discretion in all modules, but particularly with regard to Semester 1 modules.
- D Smith. The Board noted the strong recommendation of the PEC Committee and, by discretion, resolved that module XYZ1122, the only semester 1 module failed, be deemed a pass.
- E Smith – Low support for module ABC3456 only.
- E Smith. Notwithstanding the borderline result and low support for discretion by the PEC Committee, but noting the overall profile of the student's marks, the Board resolved that the student be required to resit module ABC3456.
- F Smith - Strong support for discretion in all modules, but particularly with regard to Semester 1 XYZ1122 module and semester 2.
- F Smith. The Board noted the strong recommendation of the PEC Committee and, by discretion, resolved that module XYZ1122, the only semester 1 module failed, be deemed a pass. However, the Board was not able to recommend discretion in respect of semester 2 modules. The normal resit requirements therefore apply. The Board will also make a request to UCC for the student’s next attempt at semester 2 modules to be deemed as if the first occasion of assessment.
- G Smith - No support for special discretion for semester 2 modules. Noted that the student had already been granted extensions for the same matter in semester 1.
- G Smith. The student failed three modules and with no support from the PEC Committee, and having already been granted extensions, the Board recorded that all modules should be retaken.
- H Smith. Student has been allowed a deferral to August for ABC1234. No support for special discretion for other semester 1 modules. Moderate support for special discretion for modules ABC6789 and ABC4567 in semester 2.
- H Smith. Decision deferred until the resit Board as the result for ABC1234 may influence the student’s entitlement to compensation.