University Regulations

Guide to the Assessment Regulations

This guide explains how to apply the University’s Assessment Regulations. Each section reproduces a group of provisions word for word and adds commentary, procedure and worked examples where they help.

If the guide and the Regulations differ, the Regulations prevail.

The Assessment Regulations (AR) govern how courses are assessed, graded and aggregated, and how credit is awarded. The Degree Regulations govern programmes: how much credit an award needs, progression thresholds, and the year weightings used in classification. The Glossary of Terms for the Degree Regulations and Assessment Regulations defines the terms and the University bodies named here. Glasgow Grading Schemes 1 and 2, with their verbal descriptors and grade points, are set out at the end of the Assessment Regulations and are not reproduced here.

To be read in conjuction with: Assessment Regulations

Contents

Section	Contents	Provisions
1	General Including moderation, second marking and double marking	16.1 to §16.5
2	Provision for reassessment Including reassessment, deferred assessment, capped grades	16.6 to §16.13
3	Timing and duration of examinations Including examination durations (Schedule D)	16.14 to §16.21 and Schedule D
4	Standards Including grading, grade descriptors, percentage conversion	16.22 to §16.24
5	Submission of summative assessment Including late submission penalties, Delayed Assessment Permits, online examinations	16.25 to §16.28
6	Aggregation Including course grade calculation, GPAs, Honours classification, Merit and Distinction	16.29 to §16.39
7	Award of credit Including compensatory credit, the codes CNY and CNA	16.40 to §16.44
8	Incomplete assessment resulting from Extenuating Circumstances Including deferred assessment outcomes, unclassified Honours	16.45 to §16.53
9	Management of the assessment scheme Including Assessment Officers, examiner training	16.54 to §16.60
10	Assurance of standards Including Boards of Examiners, External Examiners, joint Honours Boards	16.61 to §16.70
11	Central administration of assessment Including results release, transcripts, errors and corrections	16.71 to §16.78
12	Study abroad, visiting students and posthumous awards	16.79 to §16.81

 

Note on administrative grades

These codes appear on student records alongside course grades and are listed here for convenience:

Code	Meaning	Defined in
AU	Audit Only The course was taken on a non-credit-bearing basis with no summative assessment completed.	Registry convention
CA	Credit Awarded Credit was awarded but no overall course grade is available on the usual grading basis because some aspect of the assessment was disrupted.	Registry convention
CNA	Credit Not Awarded. Additional requirements for the award of credit have not been met and cannot be met in this academic session. In the two-thirds test for compensatory credit, a CNA course counts within the session’s credit total but never as passed, like ECC.	AR §16.42(c)(ii)
CNY	Credit Not Yet Awarded. Additional requirements for the award of credit have not yet been met but may still be met in this session. The course holds no credit while unresolved: it cannot receive compensatory credit while the requirement is unmet (AR §16.44(c)), and the session GPA waits for it because a GPA needs every course to hold credit (AR §16.34(b)).	AR §16.42(c)(i)
DFR	Outcome Deferred. The Board of Examiners could not determine the result. The code is replaced once the outcome is known. The course grade is pending.	AR §16.41(a)
EC	Extenuating Circumstances with Deferred Assessment. Approved Extenuating Circumstances apply and a deferred assessment is to come. The course grade is pending.	AR §16.41(a)
ECC	Extenuating Circumstances Complete. Approved Extenuating Circumstances apply and no further assessment opportunity exists. The course does not qualify for direct credit. It counts within the session for the compensatory credit test and is excluded from GPA calculations.	AR §16.41(b)-(c)
H	Grade H, the lowest grade on both grading schemes, contributes zero grade points. Among its uses: work submitted after feedback has gone to the class, and late online examination submissions within the late window (see section 5).	Glasgow Grading Schemes
IS	Interruption of Studies. The student’s studies are currently interrupted. The course grade is pending.	AR §16.41(a)
NS	Not Submitted. For component grades only, means the assessment was not submitted. It contributes zero grade points to the course grade calculation.	AR §16.30(b)
X (prefix)	Component reassessment flag for clinical degrees. Attached to a course grade of D3 or D0 or above where a required component grade has not been achieved: the student is offered reassessment in the deficient component or components only. The X-prefixed grade carries the same grade points as the unprefixed grade. Section 2 explains its use.	AR §16.8(d)

 A course coded EC, DFR or IS is pending: it has no credit yet, it blocks the session GPA, and it suspends the compensatory credit test until resolved (AR §16.34(b), §16.43(a)). Sections 7 and 8 explain the consequences in full.

1.    General (AR §16.1 to §16.5)

1.1.     Courses and credit

16.1 Each approved course contributing to an award of the University shall have a credit rating based upon the notional learning hours required for its completion, and determined in accordance with the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF). Regulations governing awards of the University may express the criteria for making such awards directly or indirectly in terms of accumulated credit points. The minimum requirement for the award of credits is addressed in §16.40 - §16.44.

A course is a self-contained unit of study with a defined level, credit value, aims, intended learning outcomes, modes of delivery and scheme of assessment (AR footnote 1). The award of credit, including compensatory credit, is covered in section 7.

1.2.     Schemes of assessment

16.2
a) Each such course will incorporate a scheme of assessment which:
i) assesses candidates’ performance against the intended learning outcomes of the course;
ii) includes an appropriate combination of formative and summative elements;
iii) deploys forms of assessment appropriate to the intended learning outcomes of the course, taking due account of its credit rating;
iv) where re-assessment is provided for in the degree regulations, makes provision for the re-assessment of candidates in accordance with the regulations;
v) may be changed only through procedures approved by Senate;
vi) may be varied exceptionally in a given session in response to specific circumstances subject to the approval of the Clerk of Senate;
vii) is as far as practicable anonymous.

b) Each scheme of assessment will set out the individual components of assessment and their respective weighting in the calculation of the final grade for the course.
i) ‘Component of assessment’ means each of the weighted assessments set out in the course specification document.
ii) Each component of assessment may include sub-components except that individual questions in an examination or other piece of assessment shall not be regarded as sub-components.

The component definition in §16.2(b) matters throughout the Regulations. Reassessment is offered per component (§16.8(c)), late penalties apply per component or sub-component (§16.26), and course grades are aggregated from component grades (§16.30). A component is whatever the course specification lists individually with a weighting. An examination is one component, however many questions it contains.

1.3.     Assessment information

16.3 The scheme will be implemented in accordance with the following requirements:
a) the scheme shall be fully described in the School Instructions issued in written or electronic form to all students enrolled in the course (at the beginning of the course, or as soon as practicable thereafter), with particular regard to dates, deadlines and formats of required work, weights of components of the assessment scheme, the method of marking (e.g. single marking, blind double marking, second marking), procedures for moderation of summative assessments, procedures for informing students of results and the returning of work, requirements for progression in the relevant programme and provisions for appeal;
b) due notice shall be given of dates, times and places of written and oral examinations and other assessment events;
c) appropriate provision shall be made for candidates with a formally recognised permanent or temporary disability. Please see Examination and other Assessment Arrangements for Disabled Students (Regulation 24);
d) candidates shall be supplied with relevant information on assessment criteria and on schemes for grading, classification and aggregation.

Students must be told in advance how their work will be marked and moderated (§16.3(a), and see §16.63 in section 10). The guidance note below gives the University’s rules on moderation and second marking. Assessment Officers should rely on it when briefing examiners (§16.58(c)), and Boards of Examiners rely on it when receiving moderation reports.

1.4.     Moderation and second marking of summative assessment

Definitions

Double marking: all assessments are independently marked by more than one marker. Neither marker sees the grades or comments of the other.

Second marking: independent marking by more than one marker, where the second marker sees the first marker’s grades and comments.

Moderation: a review to check the consistency of grades awarded for an assessment, normally through sampling. That sampling may involve some second marking of individual assessments.

Each process has supporting procedures outlined below: how the sample is selected, how differences between markers are resolved, and what happens when differences appear across a number of moderated scripts.

What each course type requires

Course type	Minimum requirement	Sample
Non-Honours undergraduate	Moderation	At least 10% of assessments, minimum 10, maximum 25, plus all graded E1 or below
Honours, and postgraduate certificate or diploma	Second or double marking	At least 10% of assessments, or at least 10 where the cohort is under 100, plus all graded E1 or below
Taught Masters	Second or double marking	At least 10% of assessments, or at least 10 where the cohort is under 100, plus all graded D1 or below
Single-piece courses and substantial independent work	Second marking of every assessment, preferably double marking	100%
Closed, automatically marked formats (such as multiple-choice examinations)	Exempt from second or double marking; spot checks for accuracy	Not applicable

 

General points

Moderation and second or double marking exist to make sure appropriate standards are applied, and applied consistently across the cohort. Some assessments already meet those aims: multiple-choice examinations, assessments with highly prescriptive marking schemes, or components so small that the resource required would be disproportionate. The exceptions below govern those cases. Whatever the approach taken, there must be processes to check that grades are accurately recorded and calculations are correct.

Non-Honours undergraduate assessment

Summative assessment on non-Honours undergraduate courses does not require second or double marking, but it must be moderated.

Where one marker marked all the work, another marker reviews a sample, with access to the complete list of grades awarded. The sample is 10% of the marked assessments, subject to a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 25, plus all assessments graded E1 or below. It should cover the whole range of grades awarded.

Where marking of the same piece of work is shared between markers, moderation has two stages. First, a calibration discussion among the markers, either before marking starts (focused on an outline answer and marking plan) or after each marker has graded a small number of assessments. Second, the moderator reviews a sample drawn as above, including assessments marked by each marker.

Separately from moderation, a marker may always ask for a particular piece of work to be second marked, for example where it sits close to a borderline.

Honours and taught postgraduate assessment

All summative assessment for Honours and taught postgraduate courses must involve second or double marking, unless it is a closed, automatically marked format such as a multiple-choice examination (which still needs spot checks for accuracy).

As a minimum, second marking covers a sample of at least 10% of the assessments, or at least 10 where the cohort is under 100. The sample must also include all assessments graded E1 or below for Honours and postgraduate certificate or diploma courses, and all assessments graded D1 or below for taught Masters courses. Make sure no student is advantaged or disadvantaged by the sampling itself. If a consistent pattern of disagreement between first and second markers emerges, select a further sample or second mark all the relevant work; the relevant work is the part of the assessment where the pattern appears, not necessarily the whole assessment.

Where a single piece of assessment is the whole assessment for a course, or the course is the substantial independent work required for an Honours or Masters award, every assessment must be second marked (a 100% sample) or, preferably, double marked.

Graduate Teaching Assistants and adjunct staff may mark work that counts towards a final award where this suits their experience and the marking rubric, with proper guidance and support. Any such marker must first be nominated by the Head of School and approved by the College (§16.55(a)(iii), section 9). When a GTA marks Honours or taught postgraduate work for the first time, best practice is for all of their marking to be second marked by a more experienced marker.

Is moderation still required after second or double marking?

In principle moderation is separate from marking, so the answer can be yes. In practice:

• where every assessment was second or double marked by the same pair of markers, a further moderation step is not obligatory, but is advisable if the markers disagreed consistently on a significant number of assessments
• where different pairs of markers covered different subsets of the cohort, moderation is useful to verify consistency across the subsets
• where only a sample was second marked, moderation is useful to verify that the sample was representative and the criteria were applied appropriately

Disagreements between marker and moderator

A minor disagreement is a difference of no more than 2 secondary bands in the grade for an individual question or, consequentially, for the assessment as a whole, even where it crosses a primary grade boundary (e.g. B1 against A4 is still minor). A difference of more than 2 secondary bands is a major disagreement. Under Glasgow Grading Scheme 2, all differences between markers are treated as major. Differences are consistent where the moderator would consistently have marked differently across the whole sample, and not consistent where they fall in both directions with no clear tendency.

Resolve disagreements as follows:

Pattern	Minor disagreements only	Any major disagreement
Consistent	Marker and moderator discuss each disagreement. If unresolved, a second moderator reviews a further sample.	A second moderator reviews a further sample.
Not consistent	Marker and moderator discuss each disagreement. Individual grades and feedback may be adjusted, with the basis for each agreed mark noted.	Marker and moderator discuss each disagreement. If unresolved, a second moderator reviews a further sample.

 

Wherever a second moderator reviews a further sample: if the second moderator agrees with the first moderator, the initial marker reconsiders every grade they awarded, using the feedback from both moderators; if the second moderator agrees with the initial marker, the three parties attempt to resolve the disagreement by discussion. The second moderator could be the course coordinator, if not already involved, or another marker.

Where disagreement persists after these steps, or where second or double marking produces a disagreement the markers cannot resolve between themselves, the course coordinator seeks agreement or, failing that, decides which grade is awarded. If the course coordinator is involved in the marking or moderation, or is the sole marker, the Head of School or their nominee takes this role. In such cases the External Examiner’s sample should include some of the disputed assessments, and the External Examiner should be asked for their view on the resolution adopted. The final decision on grades rests with the Board of Examiners in the light of the External Examiner’s advice.

Recording

For each assessment, two things are always recorded: who moderated the work, and that the number and percentage of items moderated met this guidance. The item-level record then depends on the outcome:

• where no disagreements were identified, no record is kept of whose work or which items were moderated; the Board of Examiners is told that no disagreements were identified,
• where disagreements were identified and resolved internally, a record of the resolution process and outcome is kept, including which students’ work was involved; it is retained and made accessible to the Board if required (it does not need to go to the External Examiner in advance),
• where disagreements could not be resolved internally, these cases are shared with the External Examiner, including the registration numbers (not names) of the students concerned and the prior attempts at resolution.

Exceptions

Where a School decides that the form of assessment and the approach to marking mean appropriate standards and consistency can be achieved without moderation or second or double marking, as with multiple-choice examinations or highly prescriptive marking schemes, there must be a clear rationale for that decision. Even where second marking or moderation is difficult (presentations, live performances, laboratory or tutorial work), more than one marker should be involved wherever possible, or a sample of the assessment recorded for later moderation. Where second or double marking and moderation are genuinely impossible or impractical, three steps are mandatory:

1. The Head of School or nominee must consider and agree the rationale, and students must be told through course documentation.
2. The marking criteria must be clearly articulated, discussed with an External Examiner before the assessment is first used, and communicated to students, ideally through course documentation. Markers should meet beforehand to reach a shared understanding of the criteria; rubrics, shared with the External Examiner and students, are strongly recommended.
3. Where more than one marker is involved, the course coordinator must review the distribution of grades awarded by each marker after marking, discuss any marker whose grades appear significantly out of line with the others (using the minor and major disagreement definitions above as the benchmark), and make any necessary adjustment. If the course coordinator is the sole marker, another identified person carries out this review.

Purely formative assessment

Where purely formative work is marked by more than one person, processes should be put in place to keep marking and feedback consistent, so students can rely on the grade awarded and are treated fairly in the quality of feedback they receive.

1.5.     Feedback

16.4 The scheme shall describe how candidates will receive feedback to guide their subsequent learning. That feedback may include the results of summative assessment. Where these are provided they will be provisional until they are confirmed or amended by the appropriate Board of Examiners.

Provisional results should be released to students as soon as they are available, marked clearly as provisional until the Board of Examiners confirms them.

1.6.     Joint and combined Honours

16.5 Where an Honours programme involves two or more subjects, the way in which the results of assessment are to be aggregated, averaged or profiled to produce an overall classification of the degree should be agreed when the degree is approved.

For Joint Honours, the two subjects are weighted equally in the classification GPA regardless of the credit split between them, and borderline profiles are weighted so that each subject contributes an equal half. Section 6 sets out the classification calculation and section 10 sets out how the two subject Boards of Examiners reach the decision.

1.7.     Assessment matters which must be provided to students

Under these Regulations, the following information must be issued to students.

The course specification must clearly state assessment component weights (§16.3(a); the specification is available to students in the Course Catalogue and on MyCampus and so should not be repeated on Moodle).

 The course Moodle must clarly but briefly inform students of:

• assessment dates, deadlines and formats, how results are reported and work returned (e.g. via MyGrades); in practice this may be as simple as “The course assessments are set out in the course catalogue at [link], and you will submit them on Moodle. Once marking is complete, you can see marks on your MyGrades page.”
• assessment criteria and the schemes for grading, classification and aggregation (§16.3(d)), including which grading scheme’s descriptors apply to which components (§16.23), any alternative form of reassessment approved for a course (§16.10(b)), and the method of marking and moderation procedures for each assessment (§16.63); in practice this may be as simple as “We use Glasgow Grading Scheme 1 for all assignments, and moderate by marking 10% of all assessments twice, in line with the University’s policy. Reassessments take the same form as original assessments.”
• any exceptions to the University’s general policies (which should not be repeated on a Moodle):
• any policy on exceptional further reassessment required by a professional, statutory or regulatory body or a partner institution (§16.9(b))
• any components or sub-components for which reassessment is not available (§16.11(b))
• any non-standard reassessment cycle for small components (see section 2)
• any additional requirements for the award of credit, and any cases where the 25% attendance concession cannot apply (§16.42(a)-(b))
• any exclusion of compensatory credit (§16.44(b))
• the rationale where an assessment is not moderated or second marked (see above).

2. Provision for reassessment (AR §16.6 to §16.13)

2.1 Reassessment and deferred assessment

16.6 ‘Reassessment’ means a further attempt at assessment following an unsuccessful first attempt, as set out in §16.8-§16.13. ‘Deferred assessment’ means a first attempt at assessment taken at a later date due to approved Extenuating Circumstances. Deferred assessment is not reassessment.

A deferred assessment is a first attempt: its grade carries full value, it is never capped, and it counts for classification and endorsement like any other first attempt (§16.50, section 8; §16.13(b) below). For example, a student who missed the May examination with approved Extenuating Circumstances and sat the examination in August is on a deferred first attempt, not a reassessment. Reassessment is a further attempt at something already attempted and failed: the course grade it contributes to is capped and never counts for classification or endorsement. When an outcome in a later assessment period is recorded, University records should clearly display if whether this is a deferred first attempt or a reassessment.

2.2 The threshold grade

16.7 In §16.8-§16.13, the ‘threshold grade’ is, unless the regulations for a particular programme say otherwise:
a) for undergraduate programmes, grade D;
b) for taught Masters degree programmes and for postgraduate certificate and diploma programmes, grade C.

The threshold grade sets both who is offered reassessment (§16.8) and the cap on a reassessed course grade (§16.13(a), with the capped values set out there).

2.3 Who is offered reassessment

16.8 Eligibility for reassessment is normally determined on the basis of course grades.
a) A student who has not achieved the threshold grade in a course and has not received compensatory credit for that course will be offered reassessment.
b) An Academic Review Panel may grant reassessment for a course where a student has not achieved the threshold grade but has received compensatory credit only if reassessment is necessary to progress with their curriculum or to meet the minimum GPA or grade requirements for progression or for an award.
c) Reassessment under (a) and (b) means one further opportunity to attempt each component of assessment for that course, other than the exception in 16.9 (b) below.
d) Where a programme requires all components of assessment for a course to be achieved at a specified grade, a student who has not achieved that grade will be offered reassessment, which will normally mean one further opportunity at assessment only in the relevant component or components.

It is important to note that §16.8(a) works together with compensatory credit (§16.43, section 7): the first question at the end of an assessment period is whether compensatory credit applies. If the student has passed two-thirds or more of the session’s credits, compensatory credit covers each failed course and no reassessment is offered for it. If not, reassessment is offered for each course that has not been awarded credit and does not have a grade which blocks reassessment (such as CNA).

These two routes are not mixed at any one decision point: after an assessment period, a student cannot be given compensatory credit for some failed courses while reassessing others (§16.43(c)). The two routes can, however, follow one another across the session, because the two-thirds test runs again after each assessment period (§16.43(d)): a student who fails the two-thirds test in the main diet, undertakes reassessment, and then holds two-thirds of the session’s credits at grade D or above is awarded compensatory credit at that point for any course still without credit. Some courses are excluded from compensatory credit by §16.44, such as the substantial independent work, and so stand outside the two-thirds test: an excluded course that is failed is offered reassessment even where compensation covers the rest of the session (see section 7).

The Academic Review Panel route in §16.8(b) is the single exception. A student who holds compensatory credit may still need a better grade, for example to meet a programme’s published requirement for a specific course, to reach a GPA minimum for progression or award, or to enable their curricular choices (e.g. by opening up second year choices for a student on a flexible degree). The Panel may grant reassessment in that case. Note that a capped grade can never improve a classification, as classification uses first-attempt grades only. What a capped grade can do is raise the GPA used for progression and award. One caution when advising a student down this route: reassessment grades cannot normally satisfy entry requirements to Honours or the Integrated Masters (§16.13(d)). Where the first-attempt requirement for entry is not met, the Head of School or their nominee may still admit a student at their discretion where performance suggests they can succeed (UG §9, UG §12): reassessment grades cannot by themselves be used to reach an entry threshold, but local discretion can take them into account as a factor.

Example 2A. A PGT Masters student’s six taught courses come out at C3 ×5 and one E1. Credits at grade D or above: 100 of 120, so compensatory credit covers the E1 and no reassessment is offered. But the taught GPA is ((12 × 5) + 8) × 20 ÷ 120 = 11.3, lower than the 12.0 needed to progress to the dissertation. The Panel may grant reassessment of the E1 course because it is necessary for progression; capped at C3, the reassessment lifts the award GPA to 12.0.

Section 16.8(d) covers component-level requirements. On a small number of programmes, students must achieve specified grades in particular components. Where the overall course grade meets the programme’s requirement but a required component grade does not, the course result is recorded with an X prefix (applicable to grades of D3 or D0 and above; see the notes to the Glasgow Grading Schemes). The X-prefixed grade carries the same grade points as the unprefixed grade. Its function is to flag that the student is offered reassessment in the deficient component or components only, not the whole course. At Boards, the X prefix is what distinguishes a component-level offer from a whole-course one; no other marker is used. The outcome of a component-level reassessment follows §16.13 like any other reassessment: the course grade is recalculated using the best grade achieved for each component and capped at the threshold grade, and the first-attempt course grade continues to serve classification and endorsement (§16.13(a)-(b)).

2.4. When and in what form is reassessment offered

16.9 a) Reassessment will be offered within the same academic session as the first attempt.
b) Exceptional further reassessments may be offered where required by professional, statutory, or regulatory bodies, or by partner institutions on collaborative programmes. Policies about this must be communicated to students in course documentation.
16.10 a) Reassessment should normally be in the same form and carry the same weighting as the first attempt.
b) If the same form cannot be used, a Board of Studies may approve an alternative form of reassessment. Any alternative must assess the same intended learning outcomes at the same level. It must require an equivalent standard of performance to achieve equivalent grades. Details of this must be set out in the course specification and communicated to students in any course documentation.
16.11 a) Exceptionally, reassessment may not be available for some components of assessment where it is not possible to replicate the assessment or to offer an alternative form of assessment. Such an exception must be approved by the Head of School and may apply to no more than 25% by weight of a course’s summative assessment, except where permitted by the Clerk of Senate.
b) Details of any components of assessment for which reassessment is not available must be set out in the course specification and communicated to students in course documentation.
c) Where a component cannot be offered for reassessment, the original grade for that component is used in any subsequent calculation.
16.12 If reassessment or deferred assessment is required to complete an academic session but is not available until a subsequent academic session, a student should expect that course content may have changed. The student should work with the School to assess what content has changed, and it is the student’s responsibility to prepare appropriately for the changed content.

Exceptional further reassessment under §16.9(b) is the route by which professional, statutory or regulatory body requirements for additional attempts are honoured, most often on clinical and professional programmes; where it applies, the policy on exceptional further reassessment must be set out in course documentation, and it sits alongside the Degree Regulations on repeats and maximum attempts.

For some assessments, such as presentations, OSCEs, or placements, reassessment is arranged as an equivalent alternative form under §16.10(b): a further sitting of an equivalent exercise assessing the same intended learning outcomes at the same level.

• 16.11 is for exceptional components that genuinely cannot be replicated or replaced, and its 25% ceiling means it will rarely fit high-weight competency assessment. Note that for any non-reassessable components of more than 10%, where a disabled student or student with Extenuating Circumstances cannot attend this assessment, they will be given an ECC grade for the course overall, which will invalidate other assessment grades and they will need to rely on compensatory credit. As a result, these components must be genuinely exceptional, generally because of clinical body requirements, and this provision should be used with extreme care. Redesigning course assessment to avoid this situation should always be the first route taken before requesting an exemption in writing from the Head of School.

For coursework reassessment, students should normally complete a fresh piece of work from a fresh set of questions rather than revise the original submission, because the cohort will usually have received grades and feedback on the original questions before the reassessment period. The same applies after a non-submission: a student who submitted nothing completes a fresh assessment. Reworking an original submission can be appropriate where the task was individual to the student, such as a self-chosen research topic or a reflective log. Groupwork is often hard to replicate; where the group activity led to a wholly individual submission and the student engaged with the activity, reassessment by reworking that submission is appropriate and should be offered. Alternatively, §16.10(b) can be used to devise in the course specification a suitable alternative to groupwork assessment which fulfils the same ILOs.

Reassessment normally follows a ratified course grade, so deferred/reassessment examinations are often undertaken in the August diet and other deferred/reassessment often runs over the summer. For small components such as weekly quizzes with fast feedback, a much shorter cycle can be acceptable providing it does not unduly compromise a student’s workload; any such arrangement must be explained in the course documentation.

For off-cycle cohorts such as January starts, reassessment falls within the cohort’s own twelve-month academic session (§16.9(a)): the August diet and summer reassessment period described here are the standard calendar’s pattern, and off-cycle cohorts use the equivalent points in their own assessment calendar, often with some variations as to when reassessment can take place.

2.5.     Outcomes of reassessment

16.13 a) The course grade following any reassessment is calculated using the best grade achieved for each component. This course grade is then capped at the threshold grade for the programme, at its lowest secondary band.
b) Only first-attempt grades contribute to the classification or endorsement of any award.
c) Reassessment grades (after capping under (a) above) contribute to the award of credit and to meeting any minimum GPA or grade requirements for award.
d) Reassessment grades can also be used to meet progress requirements, but not entry to Honours or the Integrated Masters, unless the programme specification states otherwise.

After reassessment, take the best grade achieved in each component (the original grade where a component could not be offered again, §16.11(c)), aggregate as usual (see section 6), and cap the result at the threshold grade, recorded at its lowest band: D3 (9 grade points) for undergraduate and C3 (12 grade points) for taught postgraduate programmes. Under Glasgow Grading Scheme 2 the capped grades are D0 and C0, which keep their own grade-point values (11 and 14): the cap is the grade, and each scheme’s capped grade carries that scheme’s points. Where a programme sets a different threshold, the cap sits at the lowest band of that grade instead. The course grade cap applies to all reassessments, including the resubmission of substantial independent work such as a dissertation or project.

Capping produces two GPAs for any student who has been reassessed, and §16.13(b) to (d) say which is used for what. The ‘first-attempt GPA’, built from first-attempt course grades only, is used for classification and endorsement, and for entry to Honours or the Integrated Masters. The ‘award GPA’, including capped reassessment grades, is used for programme progression and for meeting the requirements of an award. Reassessment therefore does not directly affect a student’s classification: it exists to secure credit, progression and the award itself. The full GPA definitions are at §16.34 (Guide section 6). Progress requirements themselves are in the Degree Regulations (UG §5, §9 and §12; PGT §5) and in programme specifications.

Example 2B. An undergraduate student takes six 20-credit courses and fails one at E3 (6 points). The course specification excludes compensatory credit for that course, so reassessment is offered. The reassessed components calculate to C1 (14 points); the course grade is capped and recorded as D3 (9 points). The other 5 courses were B2, C2, C3, D1 and B3 (16, 13, 12, 11, 15).

First-attempt GPA: (16 + 13 + 12 + 11 + 15 + 6) / 6 = 73 / 6 = 12.166..., rounded to 12.2. This is the GPA used for classification.

Award GPA, including the capped grade: (16 + 13 + 12 + 11 + 15 + 9) / 6 = 76 / 6 = 12.666..., rounded to 12.7. This is the GPA used for progression and award.

Remember a deferred assessment is not reassessment. A student who missed an examination with approved Extenuating Circumstances and sat it at a later diet is on a first attempt: if the course grade comes out at B2, the record shows B2, uncapped, and it counts for classification.

3. Timing and duration of examinations (AR §16.14 to §16.21)

These provisions apply to timed examinations in exam halls on campus or at other approved venues. They do not directly apply to online examinations, but the durations of online examinations should take note of the principles set out here (AR footnote 3). Submission rules for online examinations are at §16.28 (see section 5).

16.14 Where all or part of a course’s scheme of assessment consists of an ‘end of course’ examination, that examination shall normally be held within the academic session in which the course has been taught. The available durations for individual examinations are 60, 90, 120, or (only in the spring examination period) 180 minutes, all of these durations being inclusive of reading time.
16.15 The duration of an examination which occurs within the main examination diets, and which forms all or part of a course’s summative assessment, is subject to a limit determined by the level at which the course is taught, its credit rating, and the extent to which the examination contributes to the summative assessment of the course as a whole.
16.16 Where more than one such examination for the same course occurs within the main examination diets, the maximum duration prescribed in §16.17 - §16.18, and the references in the same clauses to ‘examination’, shall apply to these examinations in combination.
16.17 The duration of an examination as defined in §16.15 where it contributes 100% of the course’s summative assessment, may not, subject to §16.19, exceed the number of minutes prescribed in Schedule D.
16.18 Where such an examination accounts for less than 100% of the course’s summative assessment, the maximum duration of such an examination shall be determined by the product of that percentage (expressed as a decimal fraction) and the number of minutes appropriate to the credits and level indicated in Schedule D. Where the result of this calculation is less than 60 minutes, the maximum duration shall be rounded up to 60 minutes and, otherwise, subject to §16.19, the result shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of 30 minutes.
16.19 Where the calculated maximum duration is 60 minutes or 90 minutes, the College in which responsibility for the examination lies may approve an extension of 30 minutes where such an extension is justified by the nature and content of the examination.
16.20 The examination duration determined by these regulations may be allocated to two or more individual examinations which may be 60, 90, 120, or (only in the spring examination period) 180 minutes in length, all of these durations being inclusive of reading time.
16.21 The maximum durations prescribed in §16.17 - §16.19 shall not limit the provision available in §24.9- §24.10 to allow extra time to disabled candidates.

Schedule D, provided in the Assessment Regulations at this section, sets the maximum examination time for a course assessed entirely by examination. Where the examination carries less than 100% of the assessment, scale the Schedule D figure by the examination’s weighting and round to the nearest multiple of 30 minutes, with a minimum of 60 minutes. Individual examinations then come in the permitted lengths only (60, 90 or 120 minutes, or 180 in the spring diet only), so a larger calculated total examination time is allocated across 2 or more examinations (§16.20). Assessment that is not an examination in the main diets, such as a class test, does not reduce the time available. Extra time for disabled candidates under Regulation 24 sits outside these maxima (§16.21).

Example 3A. A 40-credit level 5 course has an end-of-course examination weighted at 80%. Schedule D gives 330 minutes; 0.8 × 330 = 264 minutes, which rounds to 270 minutes. Under §16.20 this could be split into examinations of 90 and 180 minutes in the spring diet, or 60 + 90 + 120 at other times of year. By contrast, a 20-credit level 1 course with an examination weighted 60% gives 0.6 × 150 = 90 minutes, which the College may extend to 120 minutes under §16.19 if the nature of the examination justifies it.

4. Standards (AR §16.22 to §16.24)

16.22 The standard achieved by a candidate in all summative assessments required by a course shall be judged by the relevant Board of Examiners in terms of the candidate’s attainment of the stated intended learning outcomes for that course.
16.23 Judgement shall be expressed in terms of the primary grades and secondary bands set out in Glasgow Grading Scheme 1 or in terms of the grades set out in Glasgow Grading Scheme 2. Documentation relating to courses and programmes shall indicate where Glasgow Grading Scheme 1 or Glasgow Grading Scheme 2 verbal descriptors shall apply.

The two grading schemes, with their verbal descriptors and grade points, are set out in the schedules to the Assessment Regulations. Glasgow Grading Scheme 1 expresses judgement as a primary grade (A to H) and secondary band (A1 to G2). Glasgow Grading Scheme 2 is for intended learning outcomes relating to professional, practical or clinical competence, and uses single grades (A0 to H); on professional programmes students are typically required to achieve at least D0 in each competency assessment. A course may mix the schemes across components: the documentation must state which descriptors apply to what, and §16.31 (see section 6) decides which scheme governs the course grade. The intended learning outcomes of a higher-level course are more demanding than those of a lower-level course, so an A at level 4 signifies higher attainment than an A at level 1.

4.1.     Using the grading scale

Within each primary grade above G on Scheme 1, markers select the middle band by default, then adjust to the upper or lower band according to how securely the performance belongs within the grade rather than the one above or below. B1 denotes slightly more conclusive attainment than B2, and B3 slightly less.

Grade A has 5 bands rather than 3, on the advice of internal and external examiners who found 3 bands gave insufficient encouragement either to use the middle band as the default for A-grade work or to recognise work above the default band. Aggregation needs room to discriminate at both ends of the scale, and the 5 A bands complement the finer divisions below the pass line. Grade A recognises excellence, not perfection: the test is whether the work meets the Scheme 1 descriptor for A, not whether it could not be improved. Band A1 will be awarded infrequently, but it should be achievable and awarded without hesitation where justified.

The generic descriptors are deliberately abstract. Schools are encouraged to develop subject-specific descriptors consistent with them, for example an A descriptor for an engineering design project that names what excellent design, construction and reporting look like in that field.

4.2.     Percentage marking and conversion schemes

16.24 Judgement shall be made through direct reference to the primary verbal descriptors for intended learning outcomes and the primary verbal descriptors for professional, practical or clinical competence set out in Glasgow Grading Schemes 1 and 2. Reference shall also be made to such subsidiary information as Schools may prepare to amplify the primary verbal descriptors in terms specific to a particular field of study. Where the outcome of the chosen mode of assessment is a proper percentage score it shall, before being reported to students, be converted into a primary grade and secondary band by reference to a conversion scheme determined by the Board of Examiners as appropriate for the assessment in question and subordinate to the relevant grade descriptors.

Percentage marking is permissible as a route to a grade on Glasgow Grading Schemes 1 or 2, particularly in the sciences and engineering, but only where assessment tasks can be marked objectively and consistently for all students. The percentage must be converted to a grade and band before it is reported to students and before any aggregation. Students are told the converted grade and band, not the percentage. Conversion happens per assessment component: the aggregation arithmetic in section 6 always works in grade points, never in percentages.

Conversion schemes follow three rules:

• each Board of Examiners (or similarly-constituted meeting) constructs and approves its own scheme, with reference to the design of the assessment tasks and their relation to the intended learning outcomes; there is no single University conversion scheme
• the scheme need not be linear, and there is no requirement to map equal percentage ranges to each band
• the scheme must always be subordinate to the grade descriptors: the descriptors decide what each grade means, and the conversion scheme is only a tool for getting there

For this third rule, after reviewing the marks profile, a Board or appropriate meeting of internal examiners for a course with a 50% threshold for C3 could conclude on the evidence available to them that in fact examination marks from, for example, 49% demonstrate the clear attainment of most intended learning outcomes that grade C requires, and adjust the boundary so that students at 49% receive C3 rather than D1 for that assessment.

5. Submission of summative assessment (AR §16.25 to §16.28)

5.1. Penalties for late submission

16.25 Deadlines for the submission of work which is to be formally assessed will be published in course documentation, and work which is submitted later than the deadline will be subject to penalty as set out below.
Where the work in question is a piece of independent work for which, in order to qualify for an Honours degree, a minimum grade is prescribed, any late penalty will be discounted for the purpose of determining whether that prescription has been met.

16.26 Except as modified by §16.27, the primary grade and secondary band awarded for work which is submitted after the published deadline will be calculated as follows:
a) In respect of work submitted not more than five working days after the deadline:
i) the work will be assessed in the usual way, and the primary grade and secondary band so determined will then be reduced by two secondary bands for each working day (or part of a working day) the work was submitted late;
ii) where work is submitted after feedback on that work (which may include grades) has already been provided to the student class, grade H will be awarded. Feedback may be provided to the student class within five working days of the submission deadline in relation to no more than 25% by weight of a course’s summative assessment.
b) In respect of work submitted more than five working days after the deadline:
i) where feedback on the work has not yet been provided to the student class, Grade H will be awarded;
ii) where feedback has already been provided to the student class, the work will be counted as a non-submission.

Late penalties apply immediately once the deadline has passed.

Course teams may elect to vary §16.26 (b) (ii) for specific assessments by awarding Grade H to work submitted after feedback has been provided to the student class. Details of any such arrangements must be stated in course documentation.

Working days are Monday to Friday, excluding days when the University is closed for a public or other holiday (AR footnote 4). Saturdays and Sundays never count.

5.2. Counting the days

The work is marked as if it were on time, and the grade then reduced by 2 secondary bands per working day late. A part of a working day rounds up to a whole day: work due at 10am and submitted at 11am the same day is one day late. Because weekends are disregarded, work due on Friday afternoon and submitted on Monday morning is one working day late, and so a 2-band penalty.

Example 5A. An essay is due at 4pm on Thursday and submitted at 11am the following Monday. Friday is one working day; Saturday and Sunday are disregarded; the Monday morning is a part day, rounded up. The work is 2 working days late and the penalty is 4 secondary bands. Marked at B2, the recorded grade is C3.

Two practical points for Schools setting deadlines. Submission deadlines should not be set on a Saturday or Sunday, since penalties are counted in working days. Friday deadlines are also worth avoiding if feasible: a student who misses one can submit on Monday at a cost of only 2 bands, which weakens the deadline’s force.

Sub-components are penalised in the same way as components: 2 secondary bands per working day, with grade H after 5 working days.

Where components are marked in percentages before conversion, apply a reduction of 10% per day, with zero after 5 days.

The penalty system applies to work that is submitted. Where assessment graded under Glasgow Grading Scheme 2 is an observed performance of competence, such as an OSCE or an in person presentation, rather than a written submission, late penalties do not normally arise: a missed live assessment is a non-submission, and approved Extenuating Circumstances lead to deferred assessment (see section 8).

5.3. When late becomes non-submission

The key element in accepting late work is the date of feedback (including grades and/or feedback or commentaries) to the class.

After 5 working days, if feedback has been provided to the class, the work should be graded H. If feedback has not been provided then the work is considered a non submission. Grade H and a non-submission both contribute zero grade points to the course grade (§16.30(b), section 6). H and NS are only differentiated in order to give Advising and course teams information on a student’s pattern of non-engagement for pastoral or other reasons. They operate identically in aggregation.

Late submissions and non submissions are affected by Extenuating Circumstances differently. Approved Extenuating Circumstances can result in a late penalty being waived, but Extenuating Circumstances against a non-submission requires a deferred assessment (see §16.28(e) below and section 8).

NS is recorded against individual assessments, not as a course result: where nothing is submitted for any component of assessment, we use NS for record-keeping, which operates identically to H.

Where fast feedback is used, the limit in §16.26(a)(ii) applies: feedback within 5 working days of the deadline is allowed for no more than 25% by weight of a course’s assessment.

5.4. Independent work and the late penalty discount

The provision to discount a late penalty in §16.25 applies where a minimum grade in independent work is prescribed for an Honours degree award. It applies only to that minimum grade calculation. Suppose a dissertation is submitted 2 days late, marked at C3, and recorded as E1 after the 4-band penalty. The minimum grade requirement should be judged on the C3, so the late penalty does not in itself cost the student the Honours degree. However, the E1 must still count towards the GPA, so the penalty can affect the class of degree.

The provision to discount the penalty applies only to the Honours minimum-grade test: on taught postgraduate programmes, the independent work must meet the required grade after any penalty.

5.5. Delayed Assessment Permits and deferral of deadlines

16.27 a) A candidate who is unable to submit an assessment by the published deadline, or who anticipates being unable to submit, may apply for an extension using a Delayed Assessment Permit (DAP) in accordance with the policy published by the Senate Assessors for Extenuating Circumstances. Requests to use a DAP should be made in advance of the published deadline.
b) Where the circumstances require a longer deferral than a DAP provides, or where a DAP is not available for the assessment in question, a candidate may apply for a deferral of the deadline or exemption from the penalties set out in §16.26 by making a claim in accordance with the procedures set out in §16.45-§16.53.
c) No deferral of a deadline may extend beyond the date on which feedback on that assessment is provided to the student class, unless the feedback provided to the student class would not in any way advantage a candidate in completing the assessment.

The Senate Assessors for Extenuating Circumstances publish a policy at the start of each academic year which sets out which assessments DAPs cover, how long they run and how students request them; requests should come before the deadline. An Extenuating Circumstances claim under §16.45 to §16.53 is the route where a student has evidence of their circumstances, where the circumstances need more time than a DAP gives, where no DAP is available for that assessment, or where the student is seeking exemption from a penalty already incurred.

The boundary in §16.27(c) protects assessment integrity: once feedback that could advantage the student has gone to the class, the deadline cannot be deferred past it. This protects the student from any risk of claims their grades are unfair, rather than acting as an accusation of cheating: no student should be put in a position where their grades are seen as not robust due to the release to their cohort of answers, recommendations, or other feedback. The only exception is work individual to the student, such as a dissertation or a personal portfolio, where feedback to the class on other students’ work could never advantage them; in this situation, a deferral past the feedback date can then be appropriate.

The most common situation where this occurs is for dissertations, where a long extension under the Extenuating Circumstances route may occasionally be the right response to serious disruption, accepting the costs of delayed graduation and reduced supervision availability. A long extension should be confirmed as soon as the need for it is agreed. For undergraduates, the final deadline should set before the formal end of the academic session where possible so the student can graduate in the winter graduation period.

5.6.     Online examinations and late submission

16.28 a) Information regarding the format and submission timings of online examinations will be provided to candidates in advance of the relevant examination diet.
b) It is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that the correct version of their online examination is submitted.
c) In the event that a candidate does not submit by the end of the scheduled examination time the following will apply:
i) where a late submission window is available for the examination and the candidate submits within that window a late penalty will be applied: the submission will be graded H;
ii) where a late submission window is available and the candidate does not submit by the end of that window, the examination will be treated as a non-submission;
iii) where no late submission window is available the examination will be treated as a non-submission.
d) Where different parts of an online examination require separate submission the following will apply:
i) a late penalty will be applied only to any part that is submitted late;
ii) if any part of the examination is submitted by the end of the scheduled examination time or by the end of any available late submission window the examination as a whole will be regarded as having been submitted.
e) A candidate who is unable to submit an online examination by the end of the scheduled examination time due to Extenuating Circumstances, as defined in §16.45(a) Incomplete Assessment resulting from Extenuating Circumstances, may make an application under the procedures set out in §16.45 - §16.53:
i) for waiver of the late penalty as described in §16.28 (c) (i) or §16.28 (d) (i); or
ii) where in accordance with §16.28 (c) (ii) or (iii) the examination is treated as a non-submission, for the outcome described in §16.50 to be applied.

The exam front page states the format, the scheduled examination time and whether a late submission window is available. The scheduled examination time normally includes the working duration plus, where answer files must be uploaded, 30 minutes for upload. Students assessed by the Disability Service as requiring extra time have their scheduled examination time extended by the appropriate amount. The common formats:

Format	Scheduled examination time	Late submission window	Within the window	After the window or where none exists
Timed exam, fixed start, answer files uploaded	Working duration plus 30 minutes upload time, from the fixed start	Normally 2 hours	Graded H	Non-submission
Timed exam taken within a 24-hour window, answer files uploaded	Working duration plus 30 minutes upload time, from when the student starts, ending no later than the close of the 24-hour window	Normally 2 hours; where the platform closes at the end of the scheduled time, late submission is made directly to the School per the exam front page	Graded H	Non-submission
Answers entered directly into the platform (multiple choice, short answer)	Working duration from when the student starts; saved answers are submitted automatically at the end	None	Not applicable	Non-submission if no answers were completed within the scheduled time
Open or seen exam with a 24-hour submission period	The full 24-hour period	Normally 2 hours	Graded H	Non-submission

 

Example 5B. A 2-hour exam may be started at any time in a 24-hour window opening at 9.30am. A student starts at 10.15am. Their scheduled examination time is 2 hours plus 30 minutes upload, ending at 12.45pm. A submission between 12.45pm and 2.45pm is late and graded H. After 2.45pm the exam is a non-submission.

 

Example 5C. A 2-hour exam has a fixed start of 9.30am, and the student has been assessed as requiring 25% extra time. Their scheduled examination time is 2 hours, plus 30 minutes extra time, plus 30 minutes upload, ending at 12.30pm. A submission between 12.30pm and 2.30pm is late and graded H. After 2.30pm the exam is a non-submission.

The correct-version rule in §16.28(b) means a blank or unreadable submission is graded H, as is a submission that provides no evidence (for example a link to a file store instead of the file). It is a student’s responsibility to check their work prior to submission. A submission the student later describes as a draft is still the version marked. Where multiple submissions are possible, the final submission is the attempt that is marked, and if the final submission is late the attempt is late, whatever was submitted earlier. Staff are under no obligation to check submissions before marking, but should they notice issues, they should alert students to problems as soon as they are identified; a corrected submission received after the deadline incurs a late penalty in accordance with §16.26 and §16.28.

A student prevented from submitting on time should claim Extenuating Circumstances within 5 working days of the exam (§16.47, section 8). If the claim is supported, a late submission is marked as normal instead of being graded H, and a non-submission leads to deferred assessment under §16.50.

A student who has technical difficulties during an online exam should contact the IT Helpdesk immediately using the details on the exam front page; an IT Helpdesk incident number is essential evidence for any claim.

 

6. Aggregation (AR §16.29 to §16.39)

16.29 Where the assessment scheme of a specific course or programme requires aggregation across two or more components to obtain an overall outcome, the grade points set out in Glasgow Grading Schemes 1 and 2 shall be employed.

All aggregation works in grade points. The full schemes, with descriptors, are in the schedules to the Assessment Regulations.

6.1.     Aggregation of assessments across a course

16.30 a) A course grade is calculated from all summative assessments for that course, weighted as specified in the course specification.
b) Work not submitted is recorded as Not Submitted (NS), contributing zero grade points.
c) To calculate the course grade, multiply each assessment’s grade points by its weight, add these together, and divide by the total of the weights. This produces a weighted average of the grade points.
d) Where a student has approved Extenuating Circumstances for assessment(s) worth 10% or less of a course’s total assessment, such assessment(s) may be excluded from that student’s course grade calculation by the School, should this not compromise the course’s Intended Learning Outcomes. In this situation, the course grade carries the full credit weighting of the course.

Section 16.30(d) is the only situation in which an assessment is removed from a course grade calculation. Where approved Extenuating Circumstances affect assessment worth 10% or less of the course, the School may exclude it and calculate the course grade from the remaining components, reweighted to total 100%, with the course keeping its full credit value. The course team in the School judges whether exclusion would compromise the intended learning outcomes. The exclusion is available at any level and stage, and is intended to be a light-touch alternative to deferral for trivial volumes. Anything larger than 10% must go down the deferred assessment route instead (see section 8); there is no reweighting for these larger volumes.

16.31 A weighted average of grade points is converted to a course grade as follows:
a) If a course uses Glasgow Grading Scheme 1 for 50% or more of its assessment by weight, the weighted average is rounded to a whole number and the course grade is the grade on Glasgow Grading Scheme 1 with that value.
b) If a course uses Glasgow Grading Scheme 2 for more than 50% of its assessment by weight, the weighted average is not rounded and the course grade is the grade on Glasgow Grading Scheme 2 whose range includes the average.
16.32 The course grade is then used in programme calculations as set out in §16.34-§16.39.

Grade points must be rounded to reach a point on the Glasgow Grading Scales (which do not recognise values which are not integers). Rounding at the course outcome level is to always round half up: a weighted average of 15.5 rounds to 16, and 15.4 rounds to 15. Once a value has been rounded, the rounded value is the value; no further decimals are retained or carried into later calculations.

Example 6A, Scheme 1. A 20-credit course has an exam weighted 60%, graded B2 (16), and an essay weighted 40%, graded C1 (14). The weighted average is 16 × 0.6 + 14 × 0.4 = 15.2, which rounds to 15. The course grade is B3.

Example 6B, Scheme 2. A clinical course has an OSCE weighted 50%, graded A0 (22), and a portfolio weighted 50%, graded C0 (14). The weighted average is 18.0. No rounding is applied; 18.0 falls in the A0 range (18 to 22), so the course grade is A0.

On courses which have component-level grade requirements, which are common under Scheme 2 (typically at least D0 in each competency assessment), the weighted average does not settle the outcome by itself: a student can average a pass while failing a required competency. §16.8(d) then applies, and the X-prefixed course grade flags reassessment in the deficient component or components (see section 2).

Where a course mixes the schemes, the weights decide which rule applies: Scheme 1’s rule under (a) if Scheme 1 governs 50% or more by weight, otherwise Scheme 2’s rule under (b). A course with 60% under Scheme 1 (a component at D1, 11) and 40% under Scheme 2 (a component at B0, 17) has a weighted average of 13.4, rounded to 13, course grade C2.

6.2. Aggregation of results of courses across a programme

16.33 a) A Board of Examiners shall determine and report the results for each individual course on a programme following the diet at which that course is assessed (or, where a course is assessed at more than one diet, following the diet at which the course assessment is completed), and shall determine and report the overall programme award after the final assessment diet.
b) The calculation of programme-level outcomes shall be carried out using mechanisms approved on behalf of Senate by Academic Services.
Programme-level calculations must come from the approved mechanisms. Treat any GPA displayed elsewhere, including system-generated values that may not reflect the correct credits or weightings, as indicative only; never base an award decision on one.

16.34 a) A student’s grade point average (GPA) for an academic session is the average of their grade points across a set of courses, with the courses weighted by credit value. A GPA is expressed to one decimal place.
b) A GPA is calculated when there are no remaining pending grades and all courses are awarded credit. Courses awarded credit and graded ECC under §16.41(b) are excluded from the GPA calculation.
c) A GPA is calculated and published to the student once the award of credit for the academic session has been determined under §16.40-§16.44.
d) Where reassessment has taken place, a first-attempt GPA is also calculated using only the first-attempt course grades. The first-attempt GPA is used for the classification or endorsement of awards under §16.13(b-c). The GPA including any reassessment, calculated using course grades under §16.13(a), is used for progression and for the award of a degree.
e) Where an award is based on an aggregate GPA of multiple academic sessions, session GPAs are weighted equally (or by credit load where a student’s part-time sessions carry different credit volumes, or, exceptionally, weighted as set out in the UG section of the University Regulations) and aggregated for the final award as set out in §16.35-16.39. Each session GPA is calculated independently before aggregation.

These provisions give six points of working detail:

• GPAs are calculated to one decimal place, and are rounded half up. A raw session GPA of 11.95 is rounded to 12.0; a raw value of 11.9499 is rounded to 11.9. The expressed value is final: there is no further rounding against thresholds, so a GPA of 11.9 does not meet a 12.0 requirement, and 8.9 does not meet a 9.0 progression minimum.
• Rounded values are the values. Each session GPA is rounded to one decimal place before any aggregation across sessions, and the aggregate is itself expressed to one decimal place in the same way. No hidden decimals are retained at any stage.
• A session GPA runs over the student’s enrolled credits in their academic session. For off-cycle cohorts, such as January starts, the academic session is the cohort’s own twelve-month cycle.
• For part-time students, where the sessions being aggregated carry different credit loads, the session GPAs are weighted by credit load.
• Where any course was reassessed, the first-attempt GPA (first-attempt course grades only) serves classification and endorsement; the award GPA including capped reassessment grades serves progression and the award of the degree. University systems will often show both to a student for clarity, and where no reassessment has been taken, the first-attempt will be identical to the award GPA. A worked example showing both is in section 2. Deferred assessment component grades are first-attempt component grades for every purpose.
• Where credit is not awarded due to pending grades, the first-attempt GPA is retrospective. No GPA of any kind exists until the session closes with credit resolved (§16.34(b)). At that point both GPAs are calculated together, and the first-attempt GPA uses the grade achieved at the first attempt for each course, whether or not credit was awarded at that attempt: a course credited only through capped reassessment still enters at its first-attempt grade.

A session GPA cannot be calculated while any course is pending (EC, DFR or IS; see section 7), and ECC courses are excluded from it even after they receive credit.

Note that 16.33(b) requires that calculation mechanisms such as spreadsheets are only those formally approved on behalf of Senate. Schools are forbidden from maintaining local bespoke calculation mechanisms, even in parallel with approved systems.

6.3.     Undergraduate non-Honours programmes

16.35 a) This section applies to the Ordinary degree, Certificate of Higher Education, Diploma of Higher Education, and any other undergraduate award with the endorsements of Merit or Distinction.
b) The endorsement is based on the student’s GPA across the credits contributing to the award, using grades achieved at the first attempt.
c) A student whose GPA is 15.0 or above receives the award with Distinction. A student whose GPA is 12.0 or above receives the award with Merit. A student whose GPA meets the minimum for the award but is below 12.0 receives a Pass.

The award itself (credit totals, level requirements, the 9.0 GPA minimum) is governed by the Degree Regulations; this section governs only the endorsement, which always uses first-attempt grades. There is no borderline mechanism: 14.9 is a Merit.

6.4.     Honours degree, Integrated Masters, BDS, BVMS, and MBChB programmes

16.36 a) There are four classes of Honours: first class, upper second class, lower second class, and third class. A student who does not achieve any of these has failed the Honours programme. (A student with approved Extenuating Circumstances may still receive an unclassified Honours degree under §16.53.)
b) Classification is based on grades achieved at the first attempt in the years of the programme that contribute to the classification, other than as specified in (e) below. The degree regulations applicable to the programme set out which years contribute and how they are weighted.
c) Classification occurs in three stages. In stage one, where the student’s GPA falls within one of the following ranges and all other requirements for the degree have been met, the student receives the corresponding classification:

GPA	Classification
17.5 to 22.0	First class Honours
14.5 to 17.0	Upper second class Honours
11.5 to 14.0	Lower second class Honours
9.0 to 11.0	Third class Honours
0.0 to 8.9	No award other than in (e)

Where a classification is given at stage one, no more steps are carried out.
d) In stage two, where the student’s GPA falls between two of the ranges given in stage one (that is, a GPA of 17.1 to 17.4, 14.1 to 14.4 or 11.1 to 11.4), the student’s weighted course grade profile is used to decide which classification to award. This ‘weighted course grade profile’ is the spread of individual course grades achieved at the first attempt, weighted by credit value and by any weighting given to different years of the programme. The student receives the higher classification if at least half of the weighted course grade profile is at the relevant threshold grade or above:

GPA range	Higher classification	At least half of weighted course grades at
17.1 to 17.4	First class Honours	A
14.1 to 14.4	Upper second class Honours	B or above
11.1 to 11.4	Lower second class Honours	C or above

Otherwise, the student receives the lower classification. Where a classification is given at stage two, no more steps are carried out.
e) In stage three, a student who after reassessment meets the requirements for the award of the Honours degree but whose first-attempt GPA falls below the third class range at stage one receives a third class degree. A third class degree awarded on this basis is not distinguished from any other third class degree.
16.37 The programmes of BDS, BVMS, and MBChB have three categories of award: Honours, Commendation, and Pass. A student who does not achieve any of these has failed the programme. The criteria for each category are set out in the regulations and programme documentation for each programme.

The classification stages below do not apply to the BDS, BVMS and MBChB: their award categories rest on formulae using first-attempt results across the full programme, published in programme documentation (UG-Clin §9). However, the Bachelor of Nursing with Honours is classified under the standard system set out here, calculated from years 3 and 4 weighted equally, with practice learning results excluded (UG-Clin §9).

The classification GPA is built from the first-attempt session GPAs of the contributing years, weighted as the Degree Regulations specify (equal weighting for most Honours programmes). Each session GPA is already expressed to one decimal place before the years are combined, and the result is expressed to one decimal place. For Joint Honours, a classification GPA is calculated per subject, year-weighted within the subject, and the 2 subjects are combined with equal weight regardless of the credit split; borderline profiles are likewise weighted so each subject contributes an equal half.

The stages run strictly in order, and most students finish at stage one: a GPA inside a band gives that class and nothing further is considered.

The gaps between the bands (17.1 to 17.4, 14.1 to 14.4, 11.1 to 11.4) go to stage two, which is a calculation, not a discretion: count the share of the weighted course grade profile at or above the threshold grade. The test is on the primary grade band: B or above means B3 or better (15 grade points or more), C or above means C3 or better (12 or more), and A means A5 or better (18 or more). Exactly half satisfies “at least half” and gives the higher class.

Example 6C, stage two. Equal year weights; Junior Honours session GPA 13.9, Senior Honours 14.7. The classification GPA is (13.9 + 14.7) / 2 = 14.3, which falls in the 14.1 to 14.4 borderline. The profile runs over all 240 first-attempt credits; because the year weights here are equal, each course’s weight is simply its credit share. The student has 60 of 120 Junior Honours credits and 70 of 120 Senior Honours credits at B or above: (60 + 70) / 240 = 54.2%, which is at least half, so the result is Upper second class Honours. Had the share been 45%, the result would have been Lower second.

Where the Degree Regulations weight years unequally, the profile must carry those weights too: each course’s weight is its share of its year’s credits multiplied by the year weighting. The weightings come from the Degree Regulations (UG §10 for Honours, UG §13 for the Integrated Masters), and should be confirmed there before any borderline is worked.

Example 6D, stage two with weighted years. An Integrated Masters programme weights years 3, 4 and 5 at 20:20:60. First-attempt session GPAs of 16.0, 16.0 and 18.0 give a classification GPA of (16 × 0.2) + (16 × 0.2) + (18 × 0.6) = 17.2, in the 17.1 to 17.4 borderline. Every year 5 course was graded A and every year 3 and 4 course was graded B. The share of the weighted profile at grade A is not the raw credit share (120 of 360 credits, or 33.3%): each year 5 course carries its credit share multiplied by the year weighting, so the share at A is year 5’s full weight, 60%. That is at least half, and the result is First class Honours.

Stage three is the route to a degree for a student whose first attempts fell below the third-class range but who, through capped reassessment grades, meets the requirements for the award (credit, GPA minimums and any other requirements, judged on the award GPA including reassessment under §16.13(c)). For example, where a student with a first-attempt classification GPA of 8.7 takes reassessment in two failed courses to capped D3s, this brings the award GPA to 9.4 with all other requirements met: the degree is awarded with Third class Honours, indistinguishable from any other Third.

Stage three never works in the other direction: a student whose first-attempt GPA reaches a band is classified on it at stage one or two, however many courses were reassessed to secure credit. In short, reassessment can rescue a degree but cannot demote one.

Example 6E, stage three. Junior Honours session GPA 20.0; Senior Honours first attempts of A3, A3, A3, E1, E1, E1. Only 60 of 120 credits pass at the first sitting, so no compensation applies and the 3 failed courses are reassessed, and all have grades in the C band, which are all capped at D3 and so secure the credit for the award. Once the session closes, the Senior Honours first-attempt GPA is calculated: (20 + 20 + 20 + 8 + 8 + 8) × 20 ÷ 120 = 14.0. The classification GPA is (20.0 + 14.0) ÷ 2 = 17.0, and the student is classified at stage one: Upper second class Honours. The capped D3s exist for credit, progression and award; they never touch the classification, in either direction.

A student who cannot reach an award through reassessment has failed the Honours programme; consider exit awards under the Degree Regulations, and in Extenuating Circumstances cases the unclassified Honours route at §16.53 (see section 8).

6.5.  Taught postgraduate programmes

16.38 a) Endorsements for a taught Masters degree are based on grades achieved at the first attempt across all credits on the programme, including both taught courses and the substantial independent work (such as a dissertation or project).
b) A student receives the degree with Distinction if they have achieved at the first attempt:
i) a GPA of at least 17.5 across all credits on the programme,
ii) a GPA of at least 17.0 in the taught courses, and
iii) a grade of B1 or above in the substantial independent work.
c) A student receives the degree with Merit if they have achieved at the first attempt:
i) a GPA of at least 14.5 across all credits on the programme,
ii) a GPA of at least 14.0 in the taught courses, and
iii) a grade of C1 or above in the substantial independent work.
d) Where a student’s overall GPA falls between two of these thresholds (that is, a GPA of 17.1 to 17.4 or 14.1 to 14.4), but they have met the taught course GPA and independent work grade for the endorsement, the student’s weighted course grade profile is used to decide whether to award the higher endorsement. This ‘weighted course grade profile’ is the spread of individual course grades achieved at the first attempt across all credits on the programme, weighted by credit value. The student receives the higher endorsement if at least half of the weighted course grade profile is at the relevant threshold grade or above:

GPA range	Higher endorsement	At least half of weighted course grades at
17.1 to 17.4	Distinction	A
14.1 to 14.4	Merit	B or above

Otherwise, the student receives the lower endorsement.
e) A student who does not meet the requirements for Distinction or Merit, but meets all requirements for the award, receives a Pass.

Each endorsement has three conditions, all at first attempt: the overall GPA, the taught-course GPA, and the independent work grade. The borderline mechanism applies only to the overall GPA, and only when the other two conditions for the higher endorsement are already met. The profile runs across all credits on the programme, the substantial independent work included at its grade: the B1 or C1 requirement on that work is a separate condition, not an exclusion from the profile.

Example 6F. A 180-credit Masters: taught-course GPA 17.2 (meets the 17.0 condition), dissertation (60 credits) graded B1 (meets the B1 condition), overall GPA 17.3, in the 17.1 to 17.4 borderline. The profile runs over all 180 credits, the dissertation included; the student has 80 credits at grade A, all in taught courses. 80 / 180 = 44.4%, below half, so Distinction is refused. The Merit conditions are comfortably met, and the degree is awarded with Merit.

6.6.     Postgraduate diplomas and certificates

16.39 a) Endorsements for a Postgraduate Diploma or Postgraduate Certificate are based on grades achieved at the first attempt across the credits contributing to the award.
b) A student whose GPA at the first attempt is 17.5 or above receives the award with Distinction. A student whose GPA at the first attempt is 14.5 or above receives the award with Merit. A student who meets all requirements for the award but does not meet these thresholds receives a Pass.
c) Where a student’s overall GPA falls between two of these thresholds (17.1 to 17.4 or 14.1 to 14.4), they may receive the higher endorsement based on their weighted course grade profile. This ‘weighted course grade profile’ is the spread of individual course grades achieved at the first attempt across the contributing credits, weighted by credit value. The student receives the higher endorsement if at least half of the weighted course grade profile is at the relevant threshold grade or above:

GPA range	Higher endorsement	At least half of weighted course grades at
17.1 to 17.4	Distinction	A
14.1 to 14.4	Merit	B or above

Otherwise, the student receives the lower endorsement

The mechanism here is the Masters one without the taught-course and independent-work conditions. The same stage logic applies: a GPA inside a band settles the endorsement; only the gaps go to the profile.

7. Award of Credit (AR §16.40 to §16.44)

16.40 Credit for a course is awarded when a student achieves a course grade of D or above.

Credits and grades are different currencies. The grade measures attainment and generates a GPA; credit counts towards the totals an award needs. The rule that connects them is that a course grade of D or above shows sufficient engagement with the intended learning outcomes to earn the course’s credit. On Glasgow Grading Scheme 1 that means D3 (9 grade points) or better; on Scheme 2, D0 or better. Capped reassessment grades count for this purpose (§16.13(c), section 2): a capped D3 earns credit like any other D3.

7.1.     Pending outcomes and ECC

16.41 a) A course grade is ‘pending’ where the recorded outcome is Extenuating Circumstances with Deferred Assessment (EC), Outcome Deferred (DFR), or Interruption of Studies (IS). A course with a pending outcome does not yet receive credit and is excluded from calculations under §16.43.
b) The expectation is that assessment missed at the first opportunity due to approved Extenuating Circumstances will be taken as ‘deferred assessment’ (a first attempt at a later date). Extenuating Circumstances Complete (ECC) is recorded as the course outcome where there are approved Extenuating Circumstances with no further assessment opportunity. This may arise because the assessment is not available at a later date or where the student is in the final academic session of their programme and no opportunities for deferred assessment are available before the scheduled award date. An exception to this rule for small volumes of assessment is noted in §16.30(d).
c) A course graded ECC does not qualify for the direct award of credit under §16.40. When determining whether the two-thirds threshold for compensatory credit (§16.43) is met, a course graded ECC counts within the academic session’s credit total but not towards the credits achieved at grade D or above.

A pending outcome (EC, DFR or IS) means the session is not finished: no credit yet for that course, no session GPA is calculated (§16.34(b), section 6), and the compensatory credit test cannot run until every pending outcome is resolved. EC resolves when the deferred assessment is taken and graded; DFR replaced with a grade when the missing information reaches the Board; IS resolves when the student returns and completes.

ECC is different: it is a final outcome, not a pending one. It is recorded only where Extenuating Circumstances are approved and there is genuinely no further assessment opportunity, which in practice means the assessment cannot be replicated or the student is in their final session with no opportunity before the award date (usually the spring assessment period for an undergraduate student and the August assessment period for a PGT). ECC is a last resort: the normal outcome with approved Extenuating Circumstances is still completion, which may require a special sitting or deferred assessment. ECC should never be awarded as a convenient alternative to setting deferred assessment, and small volumes of affected assessment (10% or less of a course) are handled by exclusion under §16.30(d) rather than by ECC. An ECC course behaves as follows: it counts within the session’s credits for the two-thirds test but never as passed; if compensatory credit applies it receives credit; and it stays out of every GPA calculation. A final-session student whose ECC course is covered by compensatory credit graduates on schedule: where the award’s requirements are met by applying compensatory credit to an ECC course, completion should not be delayed past the scheduled award date.

Example 7A, ECC inside the two-thirds test. A student’s 120-credit session ends with 80 credits passed at grade D or above, one 20-credit course graded ECC, and one 20-credit course failed. The two-thirds threshold is 80 credits. Passed credits are 80 of 120, so the test is met and compensatory credit is awarded for the failed course and the ECC course alike. The session GPA is calculated over the 100 credits that have actual grades: the failed course’s grade is included, and the ECC course is excluded.

7.2.     Additional requirements

16.42 a) Schools may exceptionally specify additional requirements for the award of credit in course specifications. These additional requirements must either be essential to demonstrate particular intended learning outcomes, or required by professional, statutory, or regulatory bodies. Where these additional requirements exist, a student must meet these requirements before credit is awarded.
b) Where there is any such additional requirement relating to attendance, a student may be absent from up to 25% of that requirement if the absence is due to approved Extenuating Circumstances. If there are any situations where this exception cannot apply, often due to requirements by professional, statutory, or regulatory bodies, then they will be clearly stated in the course specification.
c) The following administrative grades apply under this section:
i) Credit Not Yet Awarded (CNY): Additional requirements for the award of credit for this course have not yet been met but may still be met through further opportunities available to the student.
ii) Credit Not Awarded (CNA): Additional requirements for the award of credit for this course have not been met and cannot in the future be met.

Additional requirements are by exception. They must be set out in the course specification, and they must be justified either by the intended learning outcomes or by a professional, statutory or regulatory body: completing a placement or fieldwork, holding required immunisations, attending mandatory safety training or a required professional event.

These are requirements that sit outside graded assessment; anything marked and graded is handled by the grading and credit rules, not by §16.42. A student who has the grade but not the requirement does not have the credit: the record shows CNY while a route to meeting the requirement remains, and CNA once none does. The attendance concession in §16.42(b) means that approved Extenuating Circumstances excuse up to a quarter of an attendance requirement unless the specification states otherwise. Clinical and other professional programmes often disapply this concession to meet professional body requirements, and some require full attendance (UG-Clin §6).

For the compensatory credit decision the CNY and CNA codes behave differently. A CNY course has an underlying grade but an unmet extra requirement: it cannot receive compensatory credit while the extra requirement is unmet (§16.44(c)), and the session GPA waits for it because a GPA needs every course to hold credit (§16.34(b)); in practice the session’s compensation decision waits with it. Once the requirement is met, credit follows and the course grade already calculated overwrites the CNY and is used as the student’s grade for every purpose, including the first-attempt GPA.

A CNA course counts within the session’s credit total but never among the passed credits, exactly as an ECC course does, but cannot itself receive credit by any route (§16.44(c)-(d)). CNA is intended primarily for use as a conduct penalty, where a course must be refused credit because of misconduct (§16.44(d)). This is a rare outcome, but is available to the Senate Assessors for Student Conduct where they deem it appropriate. Note that other conduct penalties use ordinary grades, so for example a penalty of grade H with reassessment permitted is exactly that.

The arithmetic consequence for the session is that a CNA course sits within the session’s credit total but never among the passed credits, so it raises the bar of the two-thirds test for every other course, and a conduct penalty of CNA can cost a student compensation for an unrelated failed course. CNA would generally be a degree-ending penalty.

CNY never arises from conduct; it marks only a non-assessment requirement for credit that remains meetable.

7.3.     Compensatory credit

16.43 a) At the end of each academic session if credit has not been awarded for all courses under §16.40 the following applies: if a student has achieved grade D or above in courses worth two-thirds or more of the academic session’s credits and there are no pending course grades, then credit is automatically awarded for all completed courses taken in that academic session (‘compensatory credit’).
b) The award of compensatory credit does not change any course grade or the grade’s contribution to GPA calculations.
c) Compensatory credit applies to the academic session as a whole. Compensatory credit cannot be applied selectively to some courses in an academic session while others are put forward for reassessment. After compensatory credit is awarded, reassessment will not be available to improve individual course grades, except under the provisions of §16.8(b).
d) Where multiple assessment periods are available, compensatory credit is automatically determined again at the end of each assessment period. Where compensatory credit is not available or cannot be applied for a course or programme, then a student who has not achieved the award of credit for all of their academic session will normally be offered reassessment for courses which have not been awarded credit, as set out in §16.8-§16.13.

Check first whether compensation is available at all: some programmes disapply compensatory credit entirely, notably the clinical programmes and others whose degree regulations require every course to be passed (§16.44(b), UG-Clin §7). Where it is available, the two-thirds test runs automatically after completion of the first assessment period in the session, and again after each further assessment period. It has three conditions: one or more courses have not earned credit directly; courses worth two-thirds or more of the session’s credits are at grade D or above; and nothing is pending. The session’s credits are the student’s enrolled credits in their own academic session; for off-cycle cohorts such as January starts, that session is the twelve-month cycle of their cohort (the footnote to §16.43(a)). Capped reassessment grades at D or above count as passed for the test. The comparison is exact, with no rounding of the threshold: a 100-credit session needs passed credits of at least two-thirds of 100, so 70 passes the test and 66 does not, and exactly two-thirds meets it: 80 credits of a 120-credit session is enough. Because the test is a proportion of the student’s own enrolled credits, small part-time sessions reach two-thirds much less easily: a student taking two 20-credit courses who fails one has passed half of the session, not two-thirds, so reassessment rather than compensation is the likely route.

Example 7B. A session of six 20-credit courses ends C2, D3, B1, D1, E1, A5. Credits at D or above: 100 of 120, which meets the 80-credit two-thirds threshold, and nothing is pending. Credit is awarded for all 6 courses, including the one graded E1. The session GPA is (13 + 9 + 17 + 11 + 8 + 18) / 6 = 76 / 6 = 12.666..., rounded to 12.7. The E1 stays on the record and stays in the GPA: compensatory credit awards the credit, nothing else.

Had the student failed 3 courses instead of one (say D3, D3, D3, E1, E1, E1), only 60 of 120 credits would be at grade D or above: below two-thirds, so no compensation, and reassessment is offered for each failed course.

Note the following:

• compensatory credit is a route to credit but is not some sort of different credit; it is course credit just like any other course credit
• grades are untouched: compensatory credit awards credit for a failed course, while the failing grade remains the grade and remains in the GPA (§16.43(b))
• it is all or nothing at each decision point: where the test is met, a student cannot be granted compensatory credit for one failed course while being given reassessment for another, and students cannot decline compensation in favour of reassessment; the only exception is the Academic Review Panel route under §16.8(b) (see section 2), for students who hold compensatory credit but still cannot meet a curriculum, progression or award requirement. Also, note that courses excluded by §16.44 sit outside the compensatory credit test and go to reassessment in the usual way, even where compensation will cover the rest of the session once that reassessment is complete,
• if the compensatory credit test fails, reassessment follows: where compensation is not available or the threshold is not met, the student is offered reassessment for each course without credit, after which assessment period the test runs again,
• compensation secures credit, not progression: as no grades change through compensatory credit, so a student can hold every credit of a session through some being compensated while still sitting below a progression requirement such as the undergraduate 9.0 session GPA (UG §5); progression in that case is a question for an Academic Review Panel.

16.44 Compensatory credit is not available for:
a) courses which count as the substantial independent work required for the award of a degree, such as a dissertation or project;
b) courses where the course or programme specification states that compensatory credit is not available;
c) courses where additional requirements specified under §16.42 have not been met, unless the course or programme specification provides otherwise;
d) courses where a student conduct penalty specifies that credit must not be awarded. Where credit is withheld under this provision, a student’s entitlement to reassessment is determined by the terms of the conduct penalty, normally involving a conduct penalty specifying the award of a CNA grade under §16.42(c).

The exclusions prevent a course from receiving compensatory credit; an excluded course that fails goes to reassessment in the usual way. A failed project or dissertation is the everyday case: the substantial independent work is excluded by §16.44(a) however well the student did elsewhere, so the student is offered resubmission, capped at the threshold grade (see section 2). Compensation and reassessment therefore coexist in such a session: the failed dissertation is resubmitted while compensatory credit covers any other failed course the test reaches.

Where §16.44(c) allows programmes to award compensatory credit for courses currently at CNY, this would only be in situations to enable an exit award. It is otherwise not permissible to have additional requirements for the award of credit which are not actual requirements.

Some programmes disapply compensatory credit entirely, notably the clinical programmes and others whose degree regulations require every course to be passed; check the programme’s entry in the Degree Regulations and the programme specification. A CNA-coded course by definition cannot receive credit by any route.

8. Incomplete assessment resulting from Extenuating Circumstances (AR §16.45 to §16.53)

8.1. Scope and definitions

16.45 a) For the purposes of §16.46 - §16.53 of these regulations, ‘Extenuating Circumstances’ shall mean circumstances affecting a student which would reasonably result in components of a student’s programme of assessment not being completed. Extenuating Circumstances include situations where the student is unable, through no fault of their own, to fulfil the requirements of the scheme of assessment appropriate to their programme of studies. Students with chronic or persistent illness or long-term adverse personal circumstances should also refer to the University’s Policy on Reasonable Adjustments & Supportive Arrangements for Students.
b) The Senate shall appoint a cohort of Senate Assessors for Extenuating Circumstances (‘the Senate Assessors’), one of whom will act as Senior Senate Assessor, and whose responsibilities will be to:
i) determine Extenuating Circumstances policies, including requirements with regard to evidence and supporting statements;
ii) consider particularly complex or precedent-setting cases referred to them by Student & Academic Services;
iii) ensure clear process documentation is available for students and staff; and
iv) present an Annual Report to Senate.
The term of office of the Senate Assessors shall normally be three years. In the event that all Senate Assessors are temporarily unavailable, the Clerk of Senate shall nominate another member of the Senate to act as a Senate Assessor in the interim.

Extenuating Circumstances are about assessment that was not completed. A claim addresses an examination not sat, work not submitted, or a deadline that cannot be met (see §16.27 in section 5 for the boundary with Delayed Assessment Permits). A claim cannot be used to revise or improve the grade of work that was submitted.

Chronic or persistent conditions are better served by the Reasonable Adjustments and Supportive Arrangements policy, which can put ongoing arrangements in place rather than handling each assessment as a fresh claim; students in that position should be encouraged to contact their Adviser of Studies and the Disability Service early, and the Support to Study Procedure may also help (AR footnote 7).

8.2.     Process

16.46 Students will make available to the University information about any Extenuating Circumstances by submitting an Extenuating Circumstances claim using the system(s) identified by the University on the student MyGlasgow page. The decision(s) about any claim of Extenuating Circumstances shall be notified to the candidate as soon as reasonably practicable.

16.47 a) Where incomplete assessment may be the result of Extenuating Circumstances affecting a component of assessment, a student must report this by submitting an Extenuating Circumstances claim no later than five working days after the affected examination, or after the date at which submission of the work for assessment was due.
b) Late Extenuating Circumstances claims shall not be considered unless circumstances have prevented the candidate from submitting a claim within this time. Claims submitted after feedback is returned to the student class will require authorisation from the Senate Assessors for Extenuating Circumstances.
c) A candidate can only retract a claim of Extenuating Circumstances up to five working days after either the affected examination or after the date at which submission of work for assessment was due. A candidate cannot retract a claim after the date of publication of the results (including provisional results) of the assessment if this date is earlier.

16.48 a) The policy and responsibilities for the processing of Extenuating Circumstances claims, including any relevant definitions and evidence requirements, shall be clearly identified in advance of the start of each academic session and made available to staff and students by the Senate Assessors. Unless determined otherwise by the Senate Assessors, consideration of claims shall be carried out in accordance with the following:
i) The responsibility for Stage 1, the initial processing of Extenuating Circumstances claims, shall lie with Student & Academic Services and other identified staff, who will determine the severity and duration of the Extenuating Circumstances and make any necessary referrals to support services required.
ii) After Stage 1 is complete, the responsibility for Stage 2, determining the appropriate outcome(s) with regards to components of assessment, shall lie with the relevant School.
iii) Requests for reconsideration of Stage 1 decisions will be dealt with under the relevant policies published by Student & Academic Services. Appeals against Stage 2 decisions regarding Extenuating Circumstances will be held under the Code of Procedure for Appeals by Students Against Academic Decisions (Regulation 26).
b) In considering claims of Extenuating Circumstances:
i) the information provided by the candidate claiming Extenuating Circumstances and any relevant and available material submitted by them for assessment shall be scrutinised;
ii) fairness to the individual candidate claiming Extenuating Circumstances must be balanced with fairness to other candidates and the integrity of the assessment as a whole;
iii) it shall be determined whether the failure to attend an examination or to submit work for assessment has been justified by Extenuating Circumstances.

The two stages divide the EC process in half. Stage 1 asks what happened and how serious it was: Student & Academic Services assess severity and duration against the published evidence requirements, and refer the student to support services where needed. Stage 2 asks what to do about the assessment: the School, which knows the course and its assessment scheme, decides the outcome for each affected component. Schools acting at Stage 2 work from the Stage 1 determination of severity and duration, not from the underlying evidence.

The 5-working-day deadline keeps decisions close to the assessment. A late claim needs a reason why the claim itself could not be made in time, and a claim arriving after feedback has gone to the class (also known as EC After Grade Return) needs the Senate Assessors for Extenuating Circumstances’ authorisation: that authorisation route, not the Appeals code, is what handles late claims of this kind. The retraction window in §16.47(c) is firm: a student cannot wait to see a result and then withdraw the claim.

8.3.     Outcomes

16.49 Where it is determined at Stage 1 that the evidence presented does not support the candidate’s claim that they were prevented by Extenuating Circumstances from attending an examination or submitting work for assessment, the assessment or assessments in question shall be treated as non-submissions.

A rejected claim leaves missing assessments as non-submissions, contributing zero grade points to the course grade. The student may request reconsideration of the Stage 1 decision under Student & Academic Services’ published policies (§16.48(a)(iii)). The same logic covers late submission: a supported claim under §16.27(b) waives the penalty and the work is marked as normal; a rejected claim leaves the penalty in force.

16.50 Where at Stage 1 the candidate’s claim of Extenuating Circumstances is supported and the work was not submitted, the candidate shall be expected to complete their assessment by undertaking deferred assessment, as defined in §16.6. In order to permit such completion:
a) a special sitting of an examination may be arranged, or the candidate may be required to attend for examination at a scheduled diet; and/or,
b) a date for completion of non-examination assessment may be set;
as appropriate in the circumstances. Any such deferred assessment shall be regarded as the candidate’s first attempt if the examination or assessment missed would itself have been their first attempt.

The default outcome of a supported claim is completion, not exemption. The student takes the missed assessment later, as deferred assessment, and because it is a first attempt the grade is uncapped and counts for classification (§16.6 and §16.13, section 2). While the deferred assessment is outstanding, the course is coded EC and is pending: no credit, no session GPA, and the compensatory credit test waits (see section 7). A deferred assessment that is failed is a failed first attempt like any other: the session’s outcomes then run as normal, with compensatory credit or one reassessment opportunity under §16.8. Deferral moves the first attempt; it does not add attempts.

16.51 Should undertaking all deferred assessment not be possible within the same academic session as the original assessment, then the following procedures shall apply:
a) where the School believes that the candidate’s learning and/or assessment in the whole academic session or in a complete semester has been substantially and adversely impacted by Extenuating Circumstances, the candidate shall be offered the opportunity to repeat, with attendance or on an assessment-only basis, the full year or single semester in the next academic session. Assessment previously completed in the relevant session or semester will be disregarded.
b) where (a) does not apply and the deferred assessment totals more than the equivalent of 20 credits, the candidate will normally be required to remedy the incomplete assessment before being permitted to progress to the next year of the programme, and the School shall determine whether the candidate will be required to take the assessment with attendance or on an assessment-only basis;
c) where (a) does not apply and the deferred assessment totals the equivalent of 20 credits or fewer, the candidate will normally be permitted to progress to the next year of the programme and will be expected to remedy the incomplete assessment during that year, subject to any restrictions in the degree regulations;

The 20-credit line decides whether outstanding deferred assessment travels with the student after the end of the academic year. At or under 20 credits, the student normally progresses and completes the deferred assessment during the next year; above it, they normally remedy first. The underlying principle is fairness to a student in the following year – the inconvenience of a repeat year needs to be balanced with the unfairness of giving a student a heavier assessment burden than the rest of their cohort. The University’s position is that the equivalent of 20 credits is the maximum a student should be permitted to carry into a subsequent year.

Where the outstanding assessment is components rather than whole courses, the equivalent is computed as component weight multiplied by course credits, summed across courses: two 50% components of two 20-credit courses total exactly 20 credit-equivalents. The repeat option in (a) is for sessions or semesters that were substantially and adversely impacted as a whole: previously completed assessment in the repeated period is disregarded entirely, and the repeat is a fresh first attempt. A single-semester repeat is offered only where the programme’s structure makes it practicable (AR footnote 8). Where assessment carries into a later session, §16.12 applies (see section 2): course content may have changed, and the student should prepare for the changed content. A student whose circumstances point to stepping away from study entirely should be directed to the interruption of studies route; the IS code (see section 7) holds the record open meanwhile.

16.52 a) Where, despite the provisions of §16.50 and §16.51, no means of undertaking deferred assessment can be found within the candidate’s period of study, the course grade will be recorded as Extenuating Circumstances Complete (ECC) in line with §16.41(b). Credit for such a course may be awarded through compensatory credit under §16.43. Where compensatory credit does not apply, the course remains without credit and the student’s eligibility for any award is determined by the credits they hold under the relevant degree regulations.
b) Where the outstanding work for which Extenuating Circumstances is established is identified in regulations as a requirement for the award of a degree, this work must be submitted for the candidate to qualify for the award of that degree.

ECC is the end of the line, recorded only when every completion route in §16.50 and §16.51 has been exhausted. Where approved Extenuating Circumstances affect a component that cannot be offered again, the routes run in order: first the §16.30(d) exclusion, where the component is 10% or less of the course and the intended learning outcomes allow; then completion at a later sitting, which may operationally be the same sitting generally used for reassessment but is taken as a deferred first attempt; only where neither is available, ECC. Academic Review Panels oversee the difficult cases. ECC’s consequences for credit and GPA are set out in section 7; where compensation does not apply either, the student’s eligibility becomes an exit-award question under the Degree Regulations. Section 16.52(b) protects required work, such as the dissertation: Extenuating Circumstances cannot waive the requirement to submit it, subject only to the unclassified Honours route in §16.53(d) below.

16.53 a) In exceptional cases, where due to Extenuating Circumstances a candidate in the final year of an Honours programme has been unable to complete sufficient assessment for the award of a classified Honours degree, and where no means of completing the outstanding assessment can be found, then the Board of Examiners shall consider the candidate’s performance in all submitted assessments and the circumstances of the case. Where the Board is satisfied that there is strong evidence that the candidate has engaged with the learning required for the programme’s intended learning outcomes and would have been awarded an Honours degree had they not been prevented from completing the programme, the Board may recommend to the Clerk of Senate that the candidate be awarded an unclassified Honours degree. In making such a recommendation, the Board shall consult the Senior Senate Assessor for Extenuating Circumstances, who shall assess whether the candidate has no reasonable prospect of being able to complete the outstanding assessment.
b) Should the Clerk of Senate be satisfied, on the basis of the Board’s recommendation and the assessment of the Senior Senate Assessor, that the candidate has no reasonable prospect of completing and that there is strong evidence that the candidate would have been awarded an Honours degree, the Clerk may invite the candidate to accept the award of an unclassified Honours degree.
c) The candidate may decline the award, in which event they shall be considered for such exit award as the degree regulations and programme specification may provide.
d) For the purposes of this section, a candidate’s failure, due to Extenuating Circumstances, to achieve a grade D3 or above in a piece of independent work worth at least 20 credits shall not prevent award of the degree in terms of §16.52(b).

The unclassified Honours degree is a judgement, not a calculation, and it has a defined test. The Board must find strong evidence on two limbs: that the candidate engaged with the learning which the programme’s intended learning outcomes require, and that they would have been awarded an Honours degree had they not been prevented from completing. The Senior Senate Assessor supplies the third element, an assessment from the EC evidence that the candidate has no reasonable prospect of completing the outstanding assessment; if completion is realistically possible, completion is the answer, not the unclassified degree. The Clerk of Senate decides, and the candidate chooses: accept the unclassified Honours degree, or decline it and be considered for an exit award. Subsection (d) means that, in this situation only, an independent-work grade below D3 caused by Extenuating Circumstances does not bar the award.

9. Management of the assessment scheme (AR §16.54 to §16.60)

16.54 Overall responsibility for management of the assessment scheme shall rest with the relevant Head of School.

“Head of School” throughout these provisions means the Head or Heads of the School or Schools responsible for the course, or other equivalent officers (AR footnote 9).

16.55 The Examiners for the scheme shall comprise Internal Examiners and External Examiners.
a) The Internal Examiners shall be:
i) all members of academic staff who teach on the programmes;
ii) other members of academic staff appointed by the Head of School;
iii) other individuals whose services are to be employed in the assessment process (e.g. Honorary Lecturers, Research Fellows Category A, Graduate Teaching Assistants, staff from Associated Institutions); such individuals must be nominated by the Head of School and approved by the College (or by the Education Policy & Strategy Committee in the case of Associated Institutions); and
iv) members of University staff appointed as reviewers of the data of a Board of Examiners.
b) At least one External Examiner shall be appointed by Court on the recommendation of the Head of School and in accordance with the criteria and procedures agreed by the Senate (see §16.64(a) and (b)).

16.56 The Examiners, the relevant Assessment Officer(s), and a Chair appointed by the Head of School, shall constitute a Board of Examiners for the purpose of determining the results of the assessment procedure.

Note category (iii): anyone outside the academic staff who will mark or otherwise take part in the assessment process, including Graduate Teaching Assistants, must be nominated by the Head of School and approved by the College before doing so. The guidance on GTA involvement in marking is in section 1.

16.57 The Head of School shall ensure that:
a) all Assessment Officers, Clerks, and Internal Examiners have completed and passed annual training and other preparation relevant to their role in the assessment procedure, including on-going training to refresh their skills and updates on any changes to policy and practice;
b) each External Examiner has access to the necessary information and assessment material required to assist them in reaching a reasonable conclusion on assessment performance, and has the opportunity to attend oral examinations and presentations where practicable.

The training duty in §16.57(a) has two elements: completed and passed. Attendance alone does not discharge it. It applies every year, to every Assessment Officer, Clerk and Internal Examiner, however experienced, and it covers refresher training and updates when policy changes. Schools should plan for this before the assessment cycle starts: under §16.66(c) (see section 10), only suitably trained Internal Examiners can be invited to a Board of Examiners, so an untrained examiner is also an examiner who cannot attend the Board.

16.58 The Head of School shall, for each course, appoint a member of academic, or senior administrative, staff as Assessment Officer with the following delegated responsibilities:
a) to collate the provisional results of the assessment procedure and take all steps necessary to ensure their accurate reporting to the Board of Examiners;
b) to report to the Board of Examiners on the conduct of the assessment procedure, in particular drawing to its attention relevant information pertaining to the circumstances and conduct of individual candidates and any alleged deficiencies in respect of the operation of the procedure;
c) to ensure that all Examiners are conversant with the learning outcomes of the course, the intentions of the forms of assessment and the appropriate grading or classification scheme in use, the agreed marking and moderation procedures to be followed, and are supplied with marking schemes or other guides where these are employed;
d) to convey provisional results and other information pertaining to the course, the assessment and the candidates to the External Examiner(s);
e) to convey the results authenticated by the Board of Examiners to the Registry;
f) to supervise the arrangements for the assessment procedure including: the preparation of lists of candidates entitled to be assessed; procedures for recording the receipt of an assessment at the time of its submission, and for safe keeping of such records; the anonymity of submitted work, where practicable, throughout its assessment; and any arrangements for candidates with a Study Support Plan in place;
g) to oversee the maintenance of appropriate records of assessment outcomes for the purposes of subsequent monitoring of courses;
h) to ensure, in conjunction with the Conveners responsible for each course’s documentation, that such documentation accurately describes the assessment scheme and corresponding procedures;
i) to oversee the preparation of the relevant forms of assessment under secure conditions and ensure compliance with Senate’s requirements in respect of printing of examination papers;
j) to maintain throughout the assessment period the security of examination papers, other materials to be assessed and records, including examination attendance slips, relating to the procedure;
k) to confirm arrangements for the secure collection and delivery of the completed scripts where appropriate.

An individual Assessment Officer may be responsible for more than one course. Similarly, some or all of the duties detailed above may be undertaken by one or more individuals at School level for some or all courses.

The duty in §16.58(c) is where the moderation and second marking rules in section 1 reach the markers: the Assessment Officer makes sure every examiner knows the agreed marking and moderation procedures before marking starts. The closing paragraph allows flexibility in how Schools organise the role: one person may cover several courses, or a School team may share the duties. What cannot be varied is that each duty has an identified owner. Furthermore, an Assessment Officer cannot also chair the Board (§16.66(b), section 10) as the Board is assessing the Assessment Officer’s reports on the conduct of the assessment procedure.

16.59 The Head of College shall ensure that appeals against the outcomes of assessment are considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the prevailing Appeals Code.
16.60 a) Any questions of principle or procedure regarding the operation of the regulations governing incomplete assessment shall be determined by the Academic Standards Committee or, in respect of any individual case, by the Clerk of Senate.
b) Any questions of principle or procedure regarding the operation of the regulations governing Extenuating Circumstances shall be determined by the Senate Assessors for Extenuating Circumstances.

A question about the regulations governing incomplete assessment goes to the Academic Standards Committee via Academic Policy & Governance, if it is general, or to the Clerk of Senate at clerk-of-senate@glasgow.ac.uk if it concerns one student’s case. Any question of principle or procedure about the Extenuating Circumstances regulations goes to the Senate Assessors for Extenuating Circumstances (§16.45(b), section 8).

10. Assurance of standards (AR §16.61 to §16.70)

16.61 Examiners shall be responsible for the assurance of standards through the exercise of their academic judgement both directly in the assessment of candidates’ work and indirectly in the design of specific forms of assessment involving mechanical grading operations.

16.62 Internal Examiners shall:
a) have access to the relevant course documentation, possess an appropriate level of knowledge of the subject matter of the course, the course aims and the learning outcomes and the corresponding course materials;
b) be provided with guidance as to how the grading or classification scheme is to be applied in the context of the particular assessment;
c) participate in training related to their role as Examiner and seek additional guidance and/or clarification from the Head of School or relevant Assessment Officer where necessary.

16.63 The method of marking (e.g. single marking, blind double marking, second marking) and moderation procedures shall be made clear to candidates by the School.

The marking and moderation rules themselves, including what must be moderated, what must be second or double marked, and how disagreements are resolved and recorded, are set out in full in section 1. Section 16.63 requires Schools to tell students which methods apply to their assessments; course documentation is the natural place.

16.64 External Examiners shall:
a) hold an academic or professional post of an appropriate level of seniority;
b) possess substantial prior experience of assessment at equivalent levels on behalf of institutions judged to be delivering and making awards of comparable standards. Exceptionally a professional nominee who lacks the required prior experience may be appointed provided at least one experienced External Examiner is also appointed for the same course;
c) be appointed in accordance with the University’s agreed procedures. Please see Appointment of External Examiners for Taught Courses at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Level (Regulation 23);
d) have no potential conflict of interest or other impediment to the impartial discharge of the functions of external examining;
e) discharge the following functions:
i) in respect of the design of the assessment scheme:
comment on the syllabus, learning outcomes and assessment scheme of the course and its delivery mechanism in the light of experiences of candidates’ learning outcomes, comparable courses and awards elsewhere and developments within the discipline or field;
be consulted regarding proposals for the introduction or modification of a course.
ii) in respect of a given assessment diet:
comment on, in advance, all summative assessment instruments (or, in cases involving a high volume of continuous assessment, a sample may be provided for advance comment);
report on the overall standards achieved by candidates and in particular on the comparability of these standards with those of candidates on similar courses or programmes in other UK Higher Education institutions;
report on the relationship between these overall standards, programme specifications and published national subject benchmark statements;
assess the soundness and fairness of the implementation of the assessment process;
adjudicate where necessary, subject to the authority of Senate, over the grade to be awarded to any particular candidate;
certify contentment with the assessment outcomes prior to their publication;
provide an annual written report to the Principal as required by the University.
iii) in respect of meetings of the Board of Examiners:
attend at least one meeting of the Board per academic session.

External Examiners must be formally appointed under Regulation 23 before assuming any responsibilities, including advance comment on a sample of assessment instruments. Schools should watch the duration of appointments and recruit successors in good time so that cover is continuous, and give each External Examiner the information they need about the courses in their remit from the start. Academic Policy & Governance publishes guidance and nomination forms.

16.65 All examiners shall maintain the security of examination scripts and other materials to be assessed. Throughout the assessment process examiners must ensure that the identity of any candidate is not disclosed through any form of communication, including e-mail. Examination scripts and other assessed materials must be retained by Schools for the periods prescribed by Senate.

Boards of Examiners

16.66 a) Meetings of the Board of Examiners in respect of a particular course or programme shall be formally called and constituted, separately from other meetings such as School meetings. The Head of School has final responsibility for the outcomes of all Boards held in their School.
b) For each Board, the Head of School shall either act as Chair or appoint a suitably qualified senior academic colleague to act as Chair. The Chair must not also be appointed as an Assessment Officer.
c) Subject to (k), only those Internal Examiners who are suitably trained and have undertaken suitable preparatory work for the business of the Board can be invited by the Chair to any meetings of the Board of Examiners.
d) The quorum for any Board is the Chair, an Assessment Officer, a Clerk, an Internal Examiner and an External Examiner. If no External Examiner is present then written confirmation of the discharge of the functions of the External Examiner may be considered as equivalent to attendance.
e) Additional persons who may attend include both those colleagues involved in the Board’s administration and any other colleagues with direct responsibilities for quality assurance or institutional governance.
f) Meetings of the Board of Examiners shall be conducted in line with instructions issued for this purpose by the Clerk of Senate.
g) Provisional results for Boards of Examiners will be assembled and checked for accuracy of data by colleagues working under the supervision of the School Head of Professional Services.
h) These provisional results will then be scrutinised in relation to the Regulations and the correctness of outcomes in advance of the meeting of the Board of Examiners by at least two identified persons appointed for this purpose by the Chair.
i) The Board of Examiners shall receive reports on these advance checking and verification processes, and shall, on that basis and any other evidence available to it, validate and certify the provided provisional results.
j) The business of the Board of Examiners shall be minuted in a format provided by Academic Policy & Governance, and provided to Academic Policy & Governance alongside the Board’s calculations within ten working days of their confirmation by the Chair.
k) In the case of joint or combined Honours degrees the decisions on classifications of the Honours degrees for the programme shall normally be taken at whichever of the subject Board of Examiners meetings takes place later. At such meetings the Board may be composed as set out in (b)-(e) for that subject or may involve a smaller number of members selected by the Board for that subject and representing that Board with power to agree a final classification on its behalf. The other subject will be represented by a number of members of the Board of Examiners for that subject. These representatives will have authority to agree the final classification to be awarded for the joint/combined Honours degree and will convey the views of the earlier Board of Examiners, including those of External Examiner(s) present, to the later meeting. At the later meeting each of the subjects will have an equal weighting in decision making in determining the final degree classification. Where practicable the unapproved grades for the subject which has the later Board of Examiners meeting will be made available to the earlier Board of Examiners to enable it to discuss the final classification appropriate in light of these.
Subject to the agreement of the conveners of both subject Boards of Examiners, and subject to the conditions set out in the Guide to the Assessment Regulations being met, the decisions on classifications of joint or combined Honours degrees for the programme can be taken via correspondence.

Detailed rules on the constitution and conduct of Boards, including how roles may be combined, are in the Instructions issued by the Clerk of Senate (§16.66(f)).

A Board is quorate without the External Examiner in the room where there is written confirmation that their functions have been discharged (§16.66(d)); the other quorum members must be present.

10.1.     Joint and combined Honours Boards

Where a student’s Honours programme spans two subjects, the two subject Boards rarely meet on the same day, so §16.66(k) sets the sequence. Suppose the Politics Board meets before the Philosophy Board:

1. Where practicable, Philosophy passes its unapproved grades to the Politics Board.
2. The Politics Board considers all of the student’s grades and forms a view on the outcome.
3. The Politics Board identifies representatives with authority to agree a classification on its behalf, who convey its views, including those of any External Examiners present, to the later meeting, either in person or asynchronously.
4. The decision is taken at the Philosophy Board, informed by the Politics Board’s view asynchronously, or at a joint synchronous or asynchronous meeting between representatives of the Philosophy and Politics Boards empowered to agree a classification on its behalf.
5. Whatever the format, the two subjects carry equal weight in the decision.

10.2.     Conditions for deciding classifications by correspondence

The closing paragraph of §16.66(k) allows joint or combined Honours classification decisions to be taken by correspondence, subject to conditions set out in this guide (AR footnote 10). The conditions are:

• there are no complex Extenuating Circumstances or other special circumstances to be discussed about any of the students
• there are no issues raised by the External Examiners of the programme that require discussion
• there are no proposals under development for changes to the programme that would benefit from discussion at a synchronous meeting
• the conveners of both subject Boards of Examiners agree that an asynchronous Board is appropriate

If any of these conditions is not met, the meeting must be held synchronously.

16.67 If a Board of Examiners suspects, on the basis of evidence before it, that a disciplinary offence has been committed by a candidate in respect of the assessment, the Board shall invoke the provisions of the Plagiarism & Academic Integrity Code (Regulation 32) or Code of Student Conduct (Regulation 33), as appropriate.

16.68 Academic Policy & Governance shall forward External Examiners’ reports to Schools within eight weeks of receipt identifying points to which a response is required. The Head of School shall arrange for External Examiners’ reports to be considered by a School meeting and for appropriate responses to be made to specific recommendations made by the External Examiner: such responses to be conveyed within three months of receipt to Academic Policy & Governance.

16.69 The Head of School shall ensure that the assessment scheme and its operation are monitored through the Annual Monitoring Report on the course.

16.70 The Head of School shall encourage staff to take advantage of opportunities provided by the University to develop their knowledge of assessment procedures and practices with a view to ensuring that assessment schemes are effective and appropriate.

11. Central administration of assessment (AR §16.71 to §16.78)

16.71 Where an examination is a component of a summative assessment scheme the Head of the Registry shall, in conjunction with the Assessment Officer responsible for the course determine a suitable date and time for the examination, and for examinations held on campus:
a) allocate adequate accommodation, scripts and other materials as appropriate for the number of candidates to be examined;
b) provide for secure delivery of the examination paper(s) to the accommodation.
The Director of Academic Services may delegate all or part of this to the Assessment Officer responsible for the course.

In scheduling examinations, the Registry takes reasonable steps to ensure that no candidate is normally required to sit more than 3 examinations in 2 days, and avoids, as far as possible, a candidate sitting a morning examination the day after an evening examination (AR footnote 11).

16.72 Academic Policy & Governance shall determine and administer procedures to be followed in respect of the appointment, reporting, remuneration and payment of expenses of External Examiners. Procedures shall include provision for the instruction of individual External Examiners to ensure that they understand and can fulfil their responsibilities.

16.73 The Director of Academic Services shall:
a) provide lists of candidates upon which the official return of the results shall be made by the Assessment Officer;
b) prescribe the way in which each result shall be recorded and the completed lists returned;
c) reject any returned list which does not conform to the prescription;
d) authenticate the accepted lists for releasing the results.

16.74 Responsibility for releasing the results on behalf of Senate shall rest solely with the Head of the Registry who shall determine and administer, subject to the approval of Senate, appropriate procedures for processing the overall assessment results provided by the Assessment Officer(s) for a course to enable:
a) the publication of results via any internet-enabled computer either on or off-campus;
b) the recording of results on the candidates’ central records maintained by the Registry.
Candidates, nonetheless, are responsible for informing themselves of the results.

16.75 It shall be stated that all released results are subject to correction in the event of detection of an error.

Operational detail on results processing and publication is maintained by the Registry on the Policy Hub rather than in this guide.

11.1.     Errors and corrections

16.76 If an error is detected in the return made to the Registry or in the published result, and the Exam Board determines the correct result, then:
a) where the erroneous result is less advantageous than the result to which the candidate is entitled, the Director of Academic Services shall direct that the result is corrected, and inform the Clerk of Senate;
b) where the erroneous result is more advantageous than the result to which the candidate is entitled, the School will inform the candidate of the error and also the Director of Academic Services, who in turn will immediately alert the Clerk of Senate. The Clerk of Senate shall initiate a reconsideration of the result in conjunction with the relevant Head of College and Head of School and the Director of Academic Services; they may decide to sustain or correct the result in the light of all the factors known to them and shall communicate their decision forthwith to the Director of Academic Services.
In either case the School shall communicate the outcome to the candidate in writing and the Director of Academic Services shall if necessary instruct that the candidate’s record is corrected. Any decisions regarding further progression or award dependent on the incorrect result shall be null and void, and the candidate reconsidered on the basis of the correct result.

The direction of the error decides the route. A result published lower than the student earned is simply corrected. A result published higher than the student earned is not automatically corrected: the Clerk of Senate, with the Head of College, Head of School and Director of Academic Services, may sustain or correct it in the light of all the factors. The Board’s part ends with determining the correct result: the decision to sustain or correct rests with the Clerk of Senate and colleagues, not with the Board. Either way, anything decided on the strength of the wrong result, such as progression or an award, must be decided again based on the correct one.

16.77 The Registry shall produce and make available a transcript of the results obtained by each candidate which shall conform in scope and layout to principles agreed by Senate.
16.78 Exceptionally when on an occasion some provisions of these Regulations have not been followed, the assessment results shall remain valid provided that the Head of the Registry, in consultation with the Clerk of Senate, is satisfied that the assessment has been conducted substantially in accordance with these Regulations.

A missed procedural step does not automatically void a set of assessment results: under §16.78 they remain valid where the Head of the Registry, in consultation with the Clerk of Senate, is satisfied the assessment was conducted substantially in accordance with the Regulations.

12. Study abroad, visiting students and posthumous awards (AR §16.79 to §16.81)

12.1.     Assessment of study abroad

16.79 a) A candidate may undertake a period of study at another institution as part of their degree programme provided that this has been approved according to the process established for that programme.
b) Grades achieved at, and reported by, that other institution must be converted into grades as set out in Glasgow Grading Schemes 1 or 2 (as appropriate) and taken account of in determining the candidate’s final degree.
c) Before commencing the period of study at another institution candidates must be informed of the process by which their grades from that other institution will be converted as set out in (b) and should normally be provided with a conversion table showing the equivalences between grades awarded at the other institution and the grades set out in Glasgow Grading Schemes 1 or 2. The process must normally incorporate the possibility of the candidate making representations to the coordinator or committee which is charged with converting grades.
d) The processes adopted within each programme and the conversion tables must be notified to the appropriate College Dean(s) of Learning & Teaching.
e) In carrying out the conversion of grades the conversion table may be departed from in light of additional relevant information available to the coordinator or committee which performs the conversion.
f) The converted grades must be approved by the appropriate Board of Examiners.
g) Assessed work completed and assessed at another institution must not be reassessed at the University of Glasgow.
h) Appeals may be made in accordance with the terms of the prevailing Appeals Code.

Conversion tables are provided by the Translation of Grades from Study Abroad Sub-Committee. Some programmes can vary this mechanism in advance, provided the process is transparent and fair, allows the student to make representations (for example about atypical marking on a particular course), is consistent across subjects, and is notified to the Dean of Learning and Teaching, who is expected to scrutinise it.

The conversion table may be departed from in the light of additional relevant information (§16.79(e)), and the Board of Examiners approves the converted grades. This power to depart from the table operates at the point of conversion, on information about how the reported grades came about (for example a report from the host institution about the conduct of an assessment); it is not a route for reopening an approved converted grade at classification.

Conversion tables will not always exist for a new exchange, but should normally be provided in advance where there is previous experience of the partner. They should be reviewed periodically, with proposed changes submitted to the Translation of Grades from Study Abroad Sub-Committee for approval and publication in the Consolidated Conversion Tables. Involving an External Examiner in conversion is desirable where practicable.

Students should be told before they leave how their results will appear on their record as well as how they will be converted. On some programmes a session abroad is recorded as a single aggregated grade carrying 120 credits (or 60 for a semester); on others, individual course results are recorded. Whichever form is published is the form that generates the GPA and the classification. Where a single aggregated grade carries 120 credits, the weighted course grade profile at a classification borderline counts 120 credits at that grade, and the Board of Examiners should not look behind it at the individual course results reported by the host institution. Nor can work assessed abroad be reassessed at Glasgow (§16.79(g)): what the host institution’s rules offer is a matter for the host institution.

Where a student is abroad for semester 2 and assessment from semester 1 remains outstanding, a non-Honours assessment can be taken at the August diet. For Honours courses with no August assessment, the student completes at the next opportunity, such as the following spring diet, unless an alternative form of assessment completable at the end of semester 1 has been arranged.

12.2.     Assessment of visiting students

16.80 A visiting candidate is a candidate undertaking a period of study at the University of Glasgow as part of their degree programme at another institution.
A visiting candidate may be permitted to take any course at the University of Glasgow, including those which normally contribute to an Honours programme.
The scheme of assessment for a course shall normally be the same for a visiting candidate as for a University of Glasgow candidate, though this scheme may be varied in the event that the visiting candidate is required to return to their home institution before all course assessment has been completed. In considering variation of the scheme of assessment and the components of a varied scheme of assessment for a visiting candidate:
a) Requirements of the visiting candidate’s home institution shall be taken into account.
b) A visiting candidate may be required to complete an alternative component or components of assessment before leaving Glasgow or may be required to complete outstanding components of assessment at their home institution.
c) Where a course’s scheme of assessment includes a component taken under examination conditions, the varied scheme shall normally include a component of assessment under examination conditions.
A visiting candidate who attends the University of Glasgow for less than the full duration of a course shall be awarded credit in proportion to the amount of teaching time attended.
Course results for a visiting candidate must be confirmed by a University of Glasgow Board of Examiners. Where a visiting candidate finishes their studies at Glasgow before the scheduled meeting of the Board of Examiners, provisional results must be provided to the visiting candidate as soon as practicable. Where the candidate’s home institution requires a confirmed result prior to the scheduled meeting of the University of Glasgow Board of Examiners, an interim Board must be convened.

Where a varied scheme is needed, a course grade should not be awarded solely on the components the student happened to complete before leaving. A semester 1 visiting student on a course with a 50% spring examination should not be graded on the other 50% alone: the course convener should set an alternative assessment that, as a matter of academic judgement, covers the intended learning outcomes the missed examination would have assessed. Where the normal scheme includes an examination, the alternative need not be an examination, but it must be taken under examination conditions; an essay written under examination conditions on a topic given in advance can serve. Alternative arrangements must be made clear to the visiting student but do not need to appear in the course specification. Note that reassessment may not always be available to visiting students, for example on Honours courses.

An interim Board convened to confirm a result for a home institution can meet virtually, and the appropriate External Examiner should be involved, but often discharges their duty by correspondence.

12.3.     Posthumous awards

16.81 A Board of Examiners may recommend to the Clerk of Senate that an award governed by these Regulations be made posthumously in the following circumstances:
a) The candidate had completed the programme of study and satisfied the requirements of the award; or
b) The candidate had not completed the programme of study and/or had not satisfied the requirements of the award but there is strong evidence that they would otherwise have completed the programme and satisfied those requirements. In determining whether to make such a recommendation, the Board of Examiners shall consider the candidate’s performance in all submitted assessments.
In the case of a taught Masters degree, the Board of Examiners may recommend the award of the degree where there is strong evidence that they would otherwise have met the requirements for the award in relation to the independent work as well as for the taught courses. In relation to the independent work, this may include evidence other than formal submissions.
A posthumous award will normally be made only where the candidate had completed a substantial amount of the assessment required at the level of the award.

For the substantial independent work for the award of a Masters, evidence other than formal submissions can include drafts, supervision records and work in progress. A posthumous classified Honours degree may only be awarded to a student who had been a Senior Honours candidate, even where Junior Honours courses are taken at level 4 (AR footnote 12).