GUIDELINES FOR BOARDS OF EXAMINERS IN SETTING THE BOUNDARY FOR DEGREE CLASSIFICATIONS

1.Background

How boundaries for degree classifications should be determined is perhaps one of the most contentious issues in relation to Boards of Examiners. In recognition of this fact, the Academic Policy Committee agreed (December 1999) that further guidance should be provided on setting classification boundaries. This should address explicitly the notion of the natural break, the retention of rank order, the different implications of good mark profiles and good overall averages given the tensions which can arise where views differ on the desirability of each pattern and the factors that may be admitted in the debate on borderline cases.

Many Boards now set boundaries for degree classification anonymously and this has been seen as good practice and commented on favourably by External Examiners.

These Guidelines are intended to assist Board of Examiners in their deliberations regarding the setting of boundaries for degree classifications. They are based on the ‘Regulations Governing Undergraduate Awards’ and existing good practice within Departments which meets the provisions of these Regulations.

2.How the Degree Classification is determined

Under the Regulations Governing Undergraduate Awards degree classification is based on the following:

  • The order of the final overall weighted average marks from assessments in Stage 2 (with a 30% weighting) and Stage 3 (with a 70% weighting)

(Or 10%-20%-70% for four stage awards)

  • The attainment by students of a certain profile of marks in a certain number of credits at both Stage 2 and 3 (which forms an underpinning feature of the regulations as a whole in terms of both progression and award)

The above system relies very strongly on the integrity of marks allocated to individual units. The system does not permit the award of a degree other than that merited on a weighted, statistical basis by these marks, except in cases of extenuating circumstances.

Because classification is determined according to the order of the final overall weighted average marks (marks which may not be changed at a Board of Examiners) a Board may not, except in the case of extenuating circumstances, award a Degree of a higher classification to a student who has a lower Stage 2/3 weighted average than any above him/her in the rank order list who are given the lower award . This provision also applied under the University’s former regulations, although some Department used approved alternative methods to arrive at an individual student’s degree classification.

The rank order rule applies to assure equity of treatment for all students receiving an award of the University of Bradford, regardless of the degree course on which they are studying. It means that the extent to which students attain the learning outcomes, through assessment of the unit they have studied, is directly and equitably reflected in their degree classification.

3.Discretion of Boards of Examiners

The discretion of a Board of Examiners in awarding degrees is thus limited to:

3.1Cases of extenuating circumstances (the reasons must be made clear at the Board and minuted) (See Regulations governing Undergraduate Awards, Section 18.)

3.2The power to vary boundaries by up to 2.0 percentage points above or below the stated minimum final overall weighted average mark which indicated the boundaries for different classes of degree (a provision which was introduced a few years before the new regulations were devised.)

It is worth noting at this stage that Boards of Examiners are not required to exercise their discretion to vary the boundary. A Board may decide that the boundary should be left at 50, 60, 70, thus reflecting the ‘boundaries’ used in the marking of papers and strongly supporting the idea of degrees being awarded on the basis of the integrity of the marking. A Board will obviously wish to be mindful of its practice in previous years and to consider the issue of internal consistency from year to year in deciding whether or not (and indeed how much) to vary boundaries.

Boards are not required to specify an actual numerical mark when

determiningthe boundary to be set. Most Boards set a boundary

between groups ofstudents and both approaches are acceptable.

Whatever decision a Board ofExaminers makes, the reasons why the

boundary was set in a particular placeshould be clearly recorded in the

minutes. This will then show what factors were taken into account and

that specific students/groups of student met these criteria. This is

particularly important in cases of student appeal and when considering

re-sitting students at the Supplementary Board of Examiners in

September. Boards should take into account the boundary set for the

cohort inJune/July when considering student re-sitting as a first

attempt, and re-calculations using the new carry forward mark for

second attempts, as if the sameboundaries are not used it could result

ininequities of treatment betweenstudents. Providing the reasons for

setting the original boundary were clear it should also be clear whether

re-sitting candidates meet the criteria used in June/July or displayed

others which, in the opinion of the Board in September, were equally

valid but different.

4.Exercising Discretion

If a Board chooses to exercise its discretion in relation to 3.2 above, it may take into account a number of factors. Some examples of the factors it might consider are given below, although this is not an exhaustive list. A Board of Examiners may, of course, use any criteria it deems appropriate, within reason, provided that they are applied equally to all students. It may wish, for example, to be mindful of precedents set in previous years and custom and practice within the Department in general.

However, in exercising discretion the Board must ensure that this does not cause students to be awarded a classification out of rank order. Also, any internal ‘guidelines’ which a Board of Examiners may adopt to assist it in making decisions are only operative within the 2% discretionary band.

4.1Performance of Student – Preponderance of Marks

  • The Board may focus on the performance of students clustered around the borderline and the proportion of marks in a given degree classification category based on the traditional boundaries of 50%, 60%, 70% etc. in deciding where to set the boundary. The Board of Examiners would consider the distribution of marks and decide what mark distribution might make a student eligible for a higher classification. For example, a Board considering degree classification boundaries for a course with a final stage consisting of 12 single units, might specify the following profile:
  • 8 papers out of 12 should be in the first category for a First Class Degree, with an overall average of 68% or above;
  • 8 papers out of 12 should be in the 2(i) category for a 2(i) Degree, with overall average of 58% or above
  • 8 papers out of 12 should be in 2(ii) category for a 2(ii) Degree, with an overall average of 48% or above.

Boards of Examiners might find it useful to develop their own internal guidance on exact numbers of papers, if they consider that they would wish to take into account preponderance of marks in any decision to vary degree classification boundaries.

Difficulties might arise in a situation where, in recognition of what they deemed a ‘better’ profile of marks, a Board of Examiners wished to award Student B a 2(i), but Student A a 2(ii), as follows:

Student A - overall weighted average of 59.1% from a consistently 2(ii) performance across all assessments

Student B - overall weighted average of 59.0% and five 2(i) marks

The Board of Examiners would not be able to recommend the award of a 2 (i) to Student B and the award of a 2(ii) to Student A without falling foul of the rank order ruling. If the Board wanted to award a 2(i) to Student B it could set the boundary at 59.0% but in this case Student A would automatically be given the higher award.

If the Board considers that both students merit a 2(i), perhaps taking into consideration ‘exit velocity’ (see below) then it would set the boundary at 59.0%.

4.2Performance of Student - Dissertation Mark

For degree courses with a significant Dissertation/Project element, Board of Examiners may wish to take cognisance of the mark achieved by an individual student in the Dissertation/Project in considering whether or not to award a degree in the higher category. They could stipulate that the dissertation should be in the higher band, before awarding the higher class of degree. This stipulation may or may not be linked to the consideration of preponderance of marks, as in

4.1 above. Consider the following example:

Student A – overall weighted average of 59.0% from a consistently2(ii) performance across all assessments

Student B – overall weighted average of 59.1% but with a 60 credit Dissertation mark of 65%

The Board of Examiners, in recognition of the value placed on the Dissertation component within the Degree course, could set the boundary for a 2(i) Degree at 59.1%. Student A would be awarded a 2(ii) while Student B would be awarded a 2(i)

4.3Performance of Student - Exit Velocity

Exit velocity may be defined as whether a student has consistently/systematically improved their overall performance as they have proceeded through their programme of study. At its simplest, a Board may wish to compare Stage Two and Stage Three average overall performance, evidenced in a higher percentage, prior to weighting, achieved in the final compared to the previous Stage. It may wish to look at marks gained in individual units over the final Stage before making a judgement on improved performance over the Stage. This will depend, of course, on whether units are listed in chronological order on the spreadsheet used at Board of Examiners meetings. They can, however, only be distinguished by Semesters - units studied in Semester One are listed first followed by units studied in Semester Two but obviously, no further division chronologically within the Semesters is possible.

Consider the following example:

Student / Stage 2 / Stage 3 / Weighted
Average / Diss x 6 /
Single
/ U / N / I / T / S
1 / 61.7 / 62.0 / 61.9 / 65x6 / 56 / 54 / 55 / 60 / 63 / 67
2 / 59.4 / 62.3 / 61.3 / 63x6 / 57 / 52 / 54 / 63 / 61 / 76
3 / 58.2 / 61.8 / 60.7 / 62x6 / 58 / 60 / 61 / 60 / 66 / 65
4 / 54.8 / 63.1 / 60.6 / 65x6 / 59 / 59 / 58 / 65 / 62 / 65
5 / 58.0 / 61.7 / 60.6 / 65x6 / 53 / 57 / 59 / 56 / 62 / 64
6 / 58.7 / 60.7 / 60.1 / 63x6 / 49 / 61 / 58 / 60 / 60 / 63
7 / 59.8 / 59.7 / 59.7 / 57x6 / 63 / 62 / 59 / 66 / 65 / 60
8 / 60.0 / 59.5 / 59.6 / 60x6 / 63 / 63 / 57 / 57 / 58 / 56
9 / 62.2 / 58.1 / 59.3 / 56x6 / 66 / 60 / 57 / 63 / 58 / 58

In the Department from which this example is drawn, the Dissertation accounts for 60 credits in the final year, the remaining six modules are shown in the order in which they have been studied, Semester one units listed first, followed by Semester Two units. This enables a judgement to be made on the student’s achievement within the final Stage, in addition to Stage by Stage.

A Board of Examiners may wish to set the boundary in this case between students 6 and 7 at 60.0%, as all the students above this boundary improved their performance in Stage Three compared with Stage Two.

Finally, in taking Exit Velocity into consideration, Boards should be aware that this has already been recognised in the 70% weighting which is given to marks obtained in the final Stage.

4.4The Existence of Natural Breaks

Some Boards of Examiners have been unclear how to choose between what appear to be several possible ‘natural break’ points. Consider the following example:

Student / Stage 2 / Stage 3 / Weighted Average / Exit Velocity? / All Double Units in Final Year
1 / 65.7 / 62.0 / 63.2
2% Discretionary Boundary (Upper Limit)
2 / 59.3 / 63.0 / 61.8 / YES / 60 / 60 / 62 / 68 / 65 / 63
3 / 62.0 / 61.3 / 61.6 / NO / 72 / 64 / 60 / 61 / 53 / 58
4 / 62.0 / 61.2 / 61.4 / NO / 68 / 65 / 63 / 58 / 56 / 57
5 / 61.0 / 61.7 / 61.4 / YES / 58 / 60 / 57 / 66 / 68 / 61
6 / 63.0 / 59.5 / 60.7 / NO / 60 / 62 / 63 / 60 / 61 / 51
7 / 62.2 / 59.5 / 60.4 / NO / 63 / 62 / 61 / 63 / 53 / 55
8 / 58.3 / 60.5 / 59.8 / YES / 56 / 57 / 61 / 63 / 62 / 64
9 / 55.5 / 61.8 / 59.7 / YES / 58 / 64 / 62 / 61 / 66 / 60
10 / 49.7 / 64.7 / 59.7 / YES / 48 / 62 / 62 / 66 / 75 / 75
11 / 61.8 / 57.7 / 59.1 / NO / 74 / 52 / 58 / 57 / 54 / 51
12 / 57.2 / 59.8 / 58.9 / YES / 52 / 58 / 58 / 58 / 60 / 73
13 / 55.5 / 60.3 / 58.7 / YES / 56 / 56 / 57 / 65 / 57 / 71
14 / 55.3 / 60.3 / 58.7 / YES / 58 / 50 / 61 / 57 / 68 / 68
15 / 57.2 / 59.2 / 58.5 / YES / 47 / 57 / 58 / 67 / 66 / 60
16 / 61.0 / 56.5 / 58.0 / NO / 66 / 58 / 55 / 64 / 52 / 50
2% Discretionary Boundary (Lower Limit)
17 / 53.3 / 59.5 / 57.7

There are 4 possible places where a Board of Examiners might draw the boundary between a 2(i) classification and a 2(ii) classification:

  • Between 61.4 and 60.7 - a natural break of .7 percentage points.
  • Between 60.4 and 59.8 - a natural break of .6 percentage points.
  • Between 59.7 and 59.1 - a natural break of .6 percentage points.
  • Between 58.5 and 58.0 - a natural break of .5 percentage points.

This is based purely upon ‘statistics’ – these are the largest breaks statistically. No further judgement has been exercised other than that of size of break.

The Board of Examiners from which this example is drawn put the boundary between 59.7 and 59.1. In making their decision, the ‘real life’ Board of Examiners considered its own custom and practice in relation to precedents set in previous years ie. fairly strict adherence to the ‘traditional’ 60% boundary for the award of a 2(i) class of degree.

In addition to showing several ‘Natural Breaks’, the table contained in Section 4.4 above, also gives the information necessary to enable a Board of Examiners to take into account 'Exit Velocity’, both within a Stage and between Stages 2 and 3, and ‘Preponderance of Marks.’

A Board of Examiners may wish to consider the whole range of possible factors relating to student performance outlined above in determining where to put the boundary. This would involve them in making difficult judgements in respect of the relative importance attaching to the factors concerned and balancing differing views in order to reach a consensus which will, hopefully, result in Boards making equitable and consistent decisions affecting students on courses of study within their purview.

For further information and advice on any of the points raised above please contact the Academic Quality Officer for your School from the Academic Quality Unit. Contact names are to be found in this information pack.

Alison J Carass

Assistant Registrar

AQU – Updated November 2011