2018-19

2018-19

Code of Assessment

The Code of Assessment is governed by Resolution No. 564 of the University Court which came into effect on 1 October 2003. The effects of subsequent amending Resolutions are incorporated in the Regulations below.

These Regulations are reproduced in the online Guide to the Code of Assessment where they are accompanied by commentary and examples.

General

16.1 Each approved course[1] 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 and Qualifications Framework (SCQF).[2] 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.

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 coursework shall not be regarded as sub-components.

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), 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 (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.

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.

16.5 Where an examination at Honours level involves two or more subjects, the way in which the results of individual papers or units of assessment are to be aggregated, averaged or profiled to produce an overall classification of the degree should be agreed either when the degree is approved or by the time the written papers are set.


Provision for Reassessment

16.6 In §16.7 - §16.8, the ‘threshold grade’ shall, unless otherwise specified in the regulations for a particular programme, be:

a) for undergraduate programmes, grade D;

b) for programmes governed by the generic regulations for taught masters degrees and for programmes governed by the generic regulations for postgraduate certificates and diplomas, grade C.

16.7 A candidate who, by the end of the course, has failed to attain the threshold grade in that course shall normally be afforded the opportunity described in §16.8 to improve that assessment result. There shall be no such opportunity in respect of courses which contribute to the candidate’s honours classification except where permitted under the regulations governing a particular award; in such cases the original grade only shall contribute to the honours classification.

16.8 A candidate who has failed to attain the threshold grade shall, subject to the provision of §16.9, be permitted one further opportunity to attempt each component of the assessment.[3] This opportunity will be afforded within the same session as the first attempt at the component. In respect of each component, the assessment offered at this opportunity must be in essentially the same form as the assessment attempted by the candidate at their first attempt and must carry the same weighting within the scheme of assessment for the course as that first attempt. A second further opportunity to attempt the component of assessment shall not be available as a matter of right but may be permitted at the discretion of the College responsible for the programme in accordance with its policies and procedures which shall be published in the relevant course documentation.

16.9 Exceptionally, the opportunity to submit coursework for assessment provided for in §16.8 may not be available to a candidate. This will only be the case where it is not possible to replicate the coursework for the purpose of reassessment. This situation may arise from the nature of the coursework, the context in which it may be generated, and the integrity of the assessment as a whole. The decision that it is not possible to replicate coursework must be approved by the Head of School or Research Institute and details of coursework in which it is considered to be impossible to generate a reassessment must be clearly set out in the relevant course documentation.

16.10 Where, under §16.45 - §16.53, a Board of Examiners is satisfied that a candidate has been prevented by good cause from completing an assessment, that assessment shall not be counted as an attempt made by, or available to, the candidate.

16.11 Exceptionally, where a second or permitted subsequent attempt at an assessment is not available to the candidate until a subsequent academic session, the candidate shall not be entitled to assume that the content of the course will be unchanged, and it shall be the responsibility of the candidate, in conjunction with the School or Research Institute responsible for the course, to make appropriate preparation for that assessment.

16.12 a) Unless otherwise specified in the regulations for a particular programme, the final grade awarded for a course following reassessment shall be calculated as follows:

i) the best grades for each component of assessment will be used, and

ii) where any coursework cannot be replicated the original grade for that component shall be used in the calculation.

b) The grade so calculated will be published by Registry subject to the following provisions:

i) for undergraduate programmes, the number of grade points derived from the final result for a course following reassessment shall be not more than 9;

ii) for programmes governed by the generic regulations for taught masters degrees and for postgraduate certificates and diplomas, the number of grade points derived from the final result for a course following reassessment shall be not more than 12; there shall be no capping in relation to reassessment of a Masters dissertation or other substantial independent work.

16.13  a) Further to §16.7, a candidate who, by the end of the course, requires an improved assessment result in order to complete a minimum graduating undergraduate non-honours curriculum in that academic session, shall normally be afforded the opportunity described in §16.8 irrespective of the result obtained on completion of the course. This entitlement to reassessment in courses where the threshold grade has been achieved at the first attempt shall be limited to courses totalling no more than 60 credits.

b) Notwithstanding §16.12, such a candidate shall be awarded the number of grade points corresponding to the final course result following reassessment for a total of no more than 60 credits. This entitlement applies regardless of the basis on which the candidate was permitted reassessment.


Timing and Duration of Examinations

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.

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 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 §24.8 - §24.9 to allow extra time to examination candidates with disabilities.

Schedule D

Credits Levels 1 & 2 Levels 3, H and M
10 90 minutes 120 minutes
15 120 minutes 150 minutes
20 150 minutes 180 minutes
30 240 minutes 240 minutes
40 330 minutes 330 minutes
60 480 minutes 480 minutes

Standards

General

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 Schedule A or in terms of the grades set out in Schedule B.

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 Schedules A and B. 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.

Penalties for late submission of coursework

16.25 Deadlines for the submission of coursework 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.

16.26 Where the work in question is a piece of independent work for which, in order to qualify for the honours degree, a minimum grade is prescribed, any late penalty will be discounted for the purpose of determining whether that prescription has been met.

16.27 Except as modified by §16.28, the primary grade and secondary band awarded for coursework 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 less than five working days after the submission deadline in relation to no more than 25% by weight of a course's summative assessment.

b) Grade H will be awarded where work is submitted more than five working days after the deadline.

Deferral of deadlines

16.28 A candidate who is unable to submit coursework by the published deadline, or who anticipates being unable to so submit, may apply for a deferral of the deadline, or exemption from the penalties set out in §16.27(a). Any such application will be considered in accordance with the following:

a) Where the actual or anticipated delay in submission is five working days or less:

i) The application will be submitted to, and considered by, the person (normally the course convener) identified in course documentation as responsible for coursework assessment.[4]

ii) The outcome of the application will be determined at the discretion of the person responsible for coursework assessment who will require to be satisfied that the candidate submitting the application has been prevented by circumstances beyond their control from submitting the relevant work on time.

iii) Deferral of the submission deadline, or exemption from a late penalty, will be commensurate with the duration of the circumstances causing the late submission.[5]

iv) Where the application is not submitted until after the deadline for submission of the work itself, relief from a late penalty will normally be granted only where the circumstances preventing the candidate from submitting work on time have also prevented application for a deferral of the deadline for submission.

b) Where the actual or anticipated delay in submission is more than five working days the candidate shall apply for deferral of the submission deadline or exemption from penalties by making a claim in accordance with the procedures set out in §16.45 - §16.53 Incomplete Assessment resulting from Good Cause:

i) The application must be made by submission of a claim to MyCampus and must show that the delay in submission is the consequence of good cause as defined in §16.45(a) and must be supported by evidence as defined in §16.45(b).[6]

ii) The Head of School or Research Institute or nominee[7] shall determine the outcome of such an application in consultation with the relevant Assessment Officer. The outcome shall be notified to the candidate as soon as reasonably practicable.

iii)  In considering such applications:

  • the evidence provided by the candidate claiming good cause shall be scrutinised;
  • fairness to the individual candidate claiming good cause must be balanced with fairness to other candidates and the integrity of the assessment as a whole;
  • it shall be determined whether the requested deferral of submission deadline is justified by good cause.

iv) Where it is determined that the evidence presented supports the candidate’s claim that they will be unable to submit coursework in accordance with the published date, deferral of the submission deadline will be granted[8] commensurate with the nature of the relevant circumstances.

v)  Where it is determined that the evidence presented does not support the candidate’s claim that they will be unable to submit the coursework in accordance with the published deadline, the candidate will be informed[8] that the published deadline will apply and if the candidate fails to submit by the deadline late penalties will be imposed in accordance with §16.27.

Aggregation

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 Schedule A and aggregation scores set out in Schedule B shall be employed.

Aggregation of Assessments across a Course

16.30 Aggregation to establish a result for a course shall require the computation of the mean of the relevant grade points achieved in the component assessments. In computing the mean, 0 [zero] grade points shall be applied to non-submissions. All assessment components which are summative must be included and where appropriate the computation shall employ weights as specified in the course documentation.

16.31 In order to determine the overall grade to be reported for a course the following shall apply:

a)   For a course where Schedule A is employed in relation to 50% or more by weight of the course’s assessment, the mean of the relevant grade points calculated in accordance with §16.30 shall be rounded to an integer value.[9] The result for the course shall be reported as the primary grade and secondary band equivalent to that integer shown in Schedule A.

b)   For a course where Schedule B is employed in relation to more than 50% by weight of the course’s assessment, the mean of the relevant grade points calculated in accordance with §16.30 shall not be rounded and the result for the course shall be reported as the grade shown in Schedule B  that has the range in which the mean of grade points lies.

16.32 The grade points associated with the reported course grade shall be carried forward to subsequent aggregation required to determine the programme award (see §16.34 - §16.39).

Aggregation of Results of Courses across a Programme

16.33 Where there is provision for assessment to be split between examination diets, a Board of Examiners shall determine and report the results for the individual components of the programme after each intermediate diet and the overall award after the final diet.

16.34 A candidate’s grade point average over a set of courses is the weighted sum of the grade points achieved by the candidate in these courses. The grade point average shall be calculated by taking the product of each course’s weight and the candidate’s grade points, and dividing the sum of these products by the sum of the courses’ weights. The weights shall correspond to the courses’ credit ratings unless specified otherwise in the relevant programme documentation. The grade point average shall be expressed to one decimal place.

Undergraduate Non-Honours Programmes

16.35 The regulations of each award shall state:

a) the minimum grade point average required for:

i) the award,

ii) identified categories of the award such as with Merit, Distinction or Commendation or such sub-degree awards as may be made.

b) limitations on the permitted extent of compensation of performance below the stated minimum for the award in individual components of the programme.

Honours Degree and Integrated Masters Programmes

16.36 a) There shall be four classes of honours: first, upper second, lower second and third. A candidate who is not placed in one of the four classes shall have failed the honours programme. (This shall not prevent the award of an unclassified honours degree within the terms of regulation §16.52(d)(i).)

b) The honours class awarded shall be that shown in Schedules A and B as having the range in which the grade point average lies, except that a Board of Examiners shall have discretion as defined in the Notes on the Schedules.

16.37 a) The weighting of courses for the calculation of an honours classification for an undergraduate honours degree should normally follow the credit weighting of those courses in the third and fourth years of the honours programme. These weightings must be set out in the programme specification.

b) The weighting of assessments for the calculation of an honours classification for an integrated Masters degree should normally give weight to the third, fourth, and fifth years of the programme, with the assessment in the fifth year counting for at least 50% of the calculation. These weightings must be set out in the programme specification, and should normally fall within the range of 10:20:70 to 20:30:50.

BDS, BVMS and MB ChB Programmes

16.38 a) There shall be three categories of award: honours, commendation and pass. A candidate who is not placed in one of the three categories shall have failed the programme.

b) The regulations of each award shall state the requirements for the award and for the individual categories of award.

Taught Postgraduate Programmes

16.39 The regulations of each award shall state:

a) the minimum grade point average required for the award;

b) the minimum grade required in any component or components of the programme, and such limitations on the permitted extent of compensation of performance below such minimum;

c) the minimum grade point average and any other criteria, required for identified categories of the award such as with Merit or Distinction.


Minimum Requirement for the Award of Credits

16.40 a) References are made throughout §16.41 - §16.44 of these regulations to a candidate’s failure to meet fully the submission requirements for their assessment in the absence of good cause. The means by which good cause may be determined and the provisions made in circumstances where good cause is established are addressed in §16.45 - §16.53.

b) Absence from up to 25% of any specified monitored attendance of classes shall not be deemed to be a breach of the minimum requirements for credit as set out in §16.41 where such absence is deemed to be due to illness or other adverse personal circumstances, except where otherwise specified in course or programme documentation.

16.41 Except as modified by §16.44, the minimum requirement for the award of credits for a course is the submission of at least 75%[10] by weight of the course’s summative assessment (including any examinations). Schools or Research Institutes may specify further requirements such as monitored attendance at classes and examinations. All such requirements shall be specified by the School or Research Institute concerned, and given to candidates in writing at the beginning of the course. Where the scheme of assessment for a course permits resits or reassessment, requirements involving submission of assessments or attendance at examinations must be fulfilled by the end of the academic year in which the course is taken subject to an exception in cases where a candidate misses an assessment with good cause.

Undergraduate Non-Honours Courses and Postgraduate Taught Courses

16.42 For undergraduate non-honours courses and postgraduate taught courses, the following procedure shall be adopted. If, in the absence of good cause, a candidate fails to submit at least 75%[10] by weight of the course’s summative assessment (including any examinations) by the end of the first assessment diet or fails to comply with other requirements specified in writing by the School or Research Institute, and an opportunity exists to redress this situation by the end of the academic year in which the course is taken, the initial outcome shall be Credit Withheld and no grade shall be calculated. Thereafter:

a) Where a candidate has submitted at least 75%[10] by weight of the course's summative assessment (including any examinations) and/or has complied with the outstanding requirements for the award of credit by the end of the academic year in which the course is taken, the outcome following reassessment will be calculated in accordance with the scheme of assessment described in the School or Research Institute Instructions.

b) Where a candidate has not submitted at least 75%[10] by weight of the course’s summative assessment (including any examinations) and/or has failed to comply with the outstanding requirements for the award of credit by the end of the academic year in which the course is taken, no grade shall be calculated and the outcome shall be Credit Refused for that course.

16.43 Where, in the absence of good cause, a candidate has failed to comply with any mandatory requirement for the award of credit and this cannot be remedied by the end of the academic year in which the course is taken, no grade shall be calculated and the outcome shall be Credit Refused for that course.

Honours Assessment

16.44 Where the outcome of a course contributes to a final honours classification the following procedure shall be adopted. In all cases the references to non-submission are to non-submission in the absence of good cause which is defined in §16.45(a).

a) The extent of submission of honours assessment shall be determined as a percentage of the totality of summatively assessed work, based on the published assessment weightings required by the honours assessment scheme approved by Senate. The calculation of this percentage shall take into account all components of assessment over all courses contributing to the honours assessment, rather than being carried out on a course by course basis.

b) If by the end of an honours programme a candidate has:

i) submitted 75% or more of the honours assessment, and

ii) complied with other requirements set out in School or Research Institute instructions,

the grade for any course in which they have submitted less than 75% of the assessment shall be calculated by awarding a grade H for any missed assessment and the grade for the course calculated in accordance with the scheme of assessment described in the School or Research Institute instructions. This grade will be used for the purposes of honours aggregation.

c) If by the end of an honours programme a candidate has submitted less than 75% of the honours assessment they shall be refused credit for any course in which they have submitted less than 75% of the assessment.

d) Where a candidate has not completed all of the assessment for a course examined before the final year of the honours programme the grade for that course shall be returned as Credit Withheld. On completion of the honours assessment the grade for any such course shall be calculated as above.


Incomplete Assessment resulting from Good Cause

Scope and definitions

16.45 For the purposes of §16.46 - §16.53 of these regulations:

a) ‘Good cause’ shall mean illness or other adverse personal circumstances affecting a candidate and resulting in either:

i) the candidate’s failure to

  • attend an examination, or
  • submit coursework at or by the due time,[11] or
  • otherwise satisfy the requirements of the scheme of assessment appropriate to their programme of studies; or,

ii) the candidate’s performance in examination or other instrument of assessment being manifestly prejudiced.

Good cause refers to the sudden onset of illness or adverse circumstances affecting the candidate. It is not intended to apply to chronic or persistent illness or to long-term adverse personal circumstances. Where there is a chronic medical condition good cause shall only be established where the candidate’s performance in assessment has been compromised by a sudden severe episode of the illness.

b) ‘Evidence’ shall mean a report descriptive of the medical condition or other adverse personal circumstances which are advanced by the candidate for consideration as amounting to good cause. Such a report should include a supporting statement from an appropriate person as indicated by the University’s Student Absence Policy.[12] Where the report refers to a medical condition of more than seven days’ duration the report must be completed by an appropriate medical practitioner.

c) The events described in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) of this regulation shall constitute incomplete assessment.

Process

16.46 It shall be the responsibility of the candidate to make relevant good cause circumstances known to the School or Research Institute responsible for the assessment by submitting a claim to MyCampus, which must be supported by appropriate evidence.[13] The outcome of any claim shall be notified to the candidate as soon as reasonably practicable.

16.47 Where incomplete assessment may be the result of good cause, notification later than five working days after the examination, or after the date at which submission of the work for assessment was due, shall not be taken into account unless circumstances have prevented the candidate from submitting a claim within this time. A candidate may not retract a claim of good cause more than five working days after the examination or after the date at which submission of work for assessment was due, nor after the date of publication of the results of the assessment, whichever date was earlier.

16.48 a) The primary responsibility for determining claims of incomplete assessment due to good cause shall lie with the appropriate Board of Examiners. However, should a meeting of the Board of Examiners not be anticipated until some significant time after the relevant examination or coursework submission date, the Head of School or Research Institute or nominee[14] shall determine the outcome of a claim of good cause in consultation with the relevant Assessment Officer. Any such decisions shall be reported to the Board of Examiners at the next available meeting. Although the Board of Examiners may pass comment on such decisions, it may not overturn a decision where this would cause detriment to the candidate.

b) In considering claims of good cause:

i) the evidence provided by the candidate claiming good cause, and any relevant and available material submitted by them for assessment shall be scrutinised;

ii) fairness to the individual candidate claiming good cause 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 good cause;

iv) in the event of the candidate having submitted work for assessment by examination or otherwise and where the circumstances described in the claim are accepted as constituting good cause, it shall be determined whether such work has been manifestly prejudiced by good cause. If such prejudice is established the work affected shall be deemed not to have been submitted, and the procedure in §16.50 followed.

Outcomes

16.49 Where it is determined that the evidence presented does not support the candidate’s claim that they were prevented by good cause from attending an examination or submitting work for assessment, the assessment or assessments in question shall be treated as non-submissions. Where it is determined that the evidence presented does not indicate that the candidate’s performance in assessment was manifestly prejudiced by good cause, their work shall be assessed as though no claim of good cause had been received. The candidate’s grade for the course as a whole shall be calculated accordingly.

16.50 In the event of incomplete assessment arising from good cause being established the candidate shall, subject to §16.52, normally be expected to complete their assessment by attending the examination at a subsequent diet, or submitting outstanding work for assessment, if an opportunity to do so occurs within their period of study. In considering whether this requirement should apply, the desirability of the candidate’s assessment being conducted in full should be balanced with the practical considerations and financial costs to the candidate and the University of providing a later completion date. Consideration should also be given to the candidate’s other assessment commitments to ensure that they are not unreasonably burdened. 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. In any such event, that sitting or submission shall be regarded as the candidate’s first attempt if the examination or assessment missed would itself have been their first attempt.

16.51 If the outstanding work in respect of which good cause 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.

16.52 In respect of work for assessment not excluded by §16.51, where it is determined that the evidence presented supports the candidate’s claim that they were prevented by good cause from completing that work on or by the due time, and where no means of substituting an alternative assessment may be found, the following regulations shall apply:

a) The extent to which the candidate’s assessment has been completed shall be determined as a percentage, taking into account the relative weights attributed to the components of a complete assessment as published in the relevant assessment scheme approved by the Senate. The extent of such completion at sub-honours levels and on taught postgraduate programmes shall be determined on a course by course basis; at honours, the extent of completion of assessment shall be determined across the whole honours assessment.

b) The Board of Examiners shall make an overall judgement of the candidate’s work submitted for assessment, using as far as possible the standards and criteria applied in respect of the work of other candidates.

c) Where the candidate has completed 75% or more of the work required for assessment, the Board of Examiners shall recommend an award or other outcome on the basis of the work completed.

d) In respect of honours assessment,

i) where the candidate has completed at least 30% but less than 75% of the work required for assessment, an unclassified honours degree may be recommended if the completed portion is of honours standard, or, if the completed portion is not of honours standard, no award shall be made and the candidate will be regarded as not having been presented for assessment in the senior honours year;

ii) for the purposes of the award of an unclassified honours degree a candidate's failure, due to good cause, 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 §16.51;

iii) where the candidate has completed less than 30% of the work required for assessment they will be regarded as not having been presented for honours assessment;

iv) in respect of courses where good cause is established in relation to no more than 25% of the assessment, a course grade shall be returned on the basis of the completed assessment; in respect of courses where good cause is established in relation to more than 25% of the assessment, the course grade shall be returned as MV; notwithstanding the return of an MV course grade, all components of assessment unaffected by good cause shall be included in the determination of the candidate’s award in accordance with §16.52(c).

e) In respect of sub-honours and taught postgraduate assessment, where the candidate has completed less than 75% of the work required for assessment they will be regarded as not having taken the course.

16.53 Where the Board of Examiners decides to recommend an unclassified honours degree or to make no award under §16.52(d)(i), this outcome shall be communicated to the Clerk of Senate together with a reasoned case for the decision. If the candidate has been recommended for the award of an unclassified honours degree, and has not previously refused such an offer, the Clerk of Senate shall invite them to accept that award. In the event of the award being declined, the candidate shall be regarded as not having been presented for assessment in the senior honours year and, subject to the requirement to comply with the maximum duration of study prescribed for the degree, shall be eligible to repeat the full senior honours year.


Management of the Assessment Scheme

16.54 Overall responsibility for management of the assessment scheme shall rest with the relevant Head of School[15] or Research Institute.

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 programme;

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 or Research Institute through the College (or through the Education Policy & Strategy Committee in the case of Associated Institutions) to the Clerk of Senate for approval on behalf of Senate.

b) At least one External Examiner shall be appointed by Court on the recommendation of the Head of School or Research Institute and in accordance with the criteria and procedures agreed by the Senate (see §16.64(a) and (b)).

16.56 The Examiners, and the appropriate Assessment Officer(s) under the convenership of the Head of School or Research Institute (or their nominee), shall constitute a Board of Examiners for the purpose of determining the results of the assessment procedure.

16.57 The Head of School or Research Institute shall ensure that:

a) all Internal Examiners, and especially those who are not members of academic staff of the University, receive appropriate training and other preparation relevant to their role in the assessment procedure;

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.

16.58 The Head of School or Research Institute shall, for each course, appoint a member of academic, or academic related, staff as Assessment Officer with the following delegated responsibilities:

a) to ensure, in conjunction with the Course Co-ordinator or equivalent, that the relevant course documentation accurately describes the assessment scheme and corresponding procedures;

b) 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;

c) 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 coursework at the time of its submission, and for safe keeping such records; the anonymity of written work, where practicable, throughout its assessment; and any arrangements for candidates with special needs;

d) 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;

e) to confirm arrangements for the secure collection and delivery of the completed scripts where appropriate;

f) 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, and are supplied with marking schemes or other guides where these are employed;

g) to convey provisional results and other information pertaining to the course, the assessment and the candidates to the External Examiner(s);

h) to collate the provisional results of the assessment procedure and take all steps necessary to ensure their accurate reporting to the Board of Examiners;

i) 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;

j) to convey the results authenticated by the Board of Examiners to the Registry;

k) to oversee the maintenance of appropriate records of assessment outcomes for the purposes of subsequent monitoring of courses.

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.

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 Any questions of principle or procedure regarding the operation of the regulations governing incomplete assessment and good cause shall be determined by the Academic Standards Committee or, in respect of any individual case, by the Clerk of Senate.


Assurance of Standards

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.

16.63 The method of marking (e.g. single marking, blind double marking) shall be made clear to candidates by the School or Research Institute.

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 in person at least one meeting of the Board per academic session.

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 and Research Institutes for the periods prescribed by Senate.

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. Subject to (b), all Examiners shall be members of the Board of Examiners and shall be invited to all meetings of the Board: the quorum shall comprise the Head of School or Research Institute (or their nominee), the Assessment Officer, 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. No person other than Examiners and others with direct responsibilities for examining and related administrative and clerical matters shall attend or observe meetings of the Board of Examiners. The business of the Board of Examiners shall be minuted and particular records kept of the External Examiner's adjudications, comments and recommendations, as well as particular decisions made by the Board in respect of incomplete assessment, good cause and disciplinary matters. Returns of results shall be completed, checked by two persons and confirmed at the meeting of the Board of Examiners.

b) In the case of joint or combined honours degrees the decision on classification of the honours degree for the programme shall be taken at a meeting of the subject Board of Examiners which takes place later. At such meetings the Board may be composed as set out in (a) 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 equality of votes 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.

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 Statement on Plagiarism (Regulation 31) or Code of Student Conduct (Regulation 33), as appropriate.

16.68 The Senate Office shall forward External Examiners' reports to Schools within eight weeks of receipt identifying points to which a response is required. The Head of School or Research Institute shall arrange for External Examiners' reports to be considered by a School or Institute 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 the Senate Office.

16.69 The Head of School or Research Institute 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 or Research Institute 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.


Central Administration of Assessment

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:

a) determine a suitable date and time for the examination;[17]

b) allocate adequate accommodation, scripts and other materials as appropriate for the number of candidates to be examined;

c) provide for secure delivery of the examination paper(s) to the accom­modation.

The Head of Registry may delegate all or part of this to the Assessment Officer responsible for the course.

16.72 The Senate Office 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 Head of Registry 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.

16.76 If an error is detected in the return made to the Registry or in the published result then:

a) where the erroneous result is less advantageous than the result to which the candidate is entitled, the Clerk of Senate shall be informed and shall authorise the Head of Registry to correct the result;

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 Head of the Registry, 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 or Research Institute and the Head of Registry; 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 Head of Registry.

In either case the Head of Registry shall communicate the outcome to the candidate in writing and shall correct if necessary the candidate's record. 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.

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 this Code 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 the Code.


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 Schedule A or Schedule B (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 Schedule A or Schedule B. 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.


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.


Schedule A

SCHEDULE A

(Also availabe as printable PDF)

Primary Grade

Gloss

Secondary Band*

 

Primary verbal descriptors for attainment of Intended Learning Outcomes

Honours Class

Grade Point

A

Excellent

A1

22

Exemplary range and depth of attainment of intended learning outcomes, secured by discriminating command of a comprehensive range of relevant materials and analyses, and by deployment of considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

First

   

A2

21

   

A3

20

   

A4

19

   

A5

18

B

Very Good

B1

17

Conclusive attainment of virtually all intended learning outcomes, clearly grounded on a close familiarity with a wide range of supporting evidence, constructively utilised to reveal appreciable depth of understanding

Upper Second

   

B2

16

   

B3

15

C

Good

C1

14

Clear attainment of most of the intended learning outcomes, some more securely grasped than others, resting on a circumscribed range of evidence and displaying a variable depth of understanding

Lower Second

   

C2

13

   

C3

12

D

Satisfactory

D1

11

Acceptable attainment of intended learning outcomes, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials, and a grasp of the analytical issues and concepts which is generally reasonable, albeit insecure

Third

   

D2

10

   

D3

9

E

Weak

E1

8

Attainment deficient in respect of specific intended learning outcomes, with mixed evidence as to the depth of knowledge and weak deployment of arguments or deficient manipulations

Fail

   

E2

7

   

E3

6

F

Poor

F1

5

Attainment of intended learning outcomes appreciably deficient in critical respects, lacking secure basis in relevant factual and analytical dimensions

   

F2

4

   

F3

3

G

Very Poor

G1

2

Attainment of intended learning outcomes markedly deficient in respect of nearly all intended learning outcomes, with irrelevant use of materials and incomplete and flawed explanation

   

G2

1

H

   

0

No convincing evidence of attainment of intended learning outcomes, such treatment of the subject as is in evidence being directionless and fragmentary

     

CR

CREDIT REFUSED

Failure to comply, in the absence of good cause, with the published requirements of the course or programme; and/or a serious breach of regulations

   

* The Secondary Band indicates the degree to which the work possesses the quality of the corresponding descriptor.

This gloss is used because it is the lowest grade normally associated with the attainment of an undergraduate award. Undergraduate students should be aware that progress to most honours programmes require a grade above D in certain courses. Postgraduate students should be aware that on most programmes an average of above D in taught courses is required for progress to the dissertation at Masters level. Students should consult the appropriate degree regulations and course handbooks for the grades they require to progress to specific awards.


Schedule B

SCHEDULE B

(Also availabe as printable PDF)

Grade

Gloss

Range of Mean Grade Points

 

Verbal Descriptors for Attainment of Intended Learning Outcomes Relating to Professional, Practical or Clinical Competence

Honours Class

Grade Points for Aggregation

A0

Excellent

    

18 - 22

22

Exemplary and polished demonstration of the required skill(s), displaying underpinning knowledge, sound judgement and appropriate professional values, as evidenced by focussed sensitivity to the context, the needs of any subject, and the wider implications of the candidate’s actions

First

 
 
 
 

B0

Very Good

15 - <18

17

Efficient and confident demonstration of the required skill(s), displaying underpinning knowledge, sound judgement and appropriate professional values, as evidenced by an evident appreciation of the possible implications of the candidate’s actions, demonstrating initiative and flexibility of approach

Upper Second





   
 

C0

Good

12 - <15

14

Clear demonstration of attainment of the required skill(s), displaying underpinning knowledge, good judgement and appropriate professional values, as evidenced by familiarity with how to proceed in a range of contexts

Lower Second

   

 

 

   

 

 

D0

Satisfactory

9 - <12

11

Adequate independent performance of required skill, displaying underpinning knowledge, adequate judgement and appropriate professional values, suitable to routine contexts

Third

   

 

 

   

 

 

E0

Weak

6 - <9

8

Adequate independent performance of some but not all required skills. Some knowledge, judgement and professional values that indicate an awareness of personal limitations

Fail

   

 

 
   

 

 

F0

Poor

3 - <6

5

Presently inadequate independent performance of the required skill. Knowledge, judgement and professional values are at least sufficient to indicate an awareness of personal limitations

   

 

 

   

 

 

G0

Very Poor

1 - <3

2

Wholly inadequate performance of the required skill, lacking in secure base of relevant knowledge and poor use of such knowledge, showing fundamental misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Evidence of poor judgement and professional values

   

 

 

H

  0 - <1

0

Not presently capable of independent performance of the required skill, lacking self-awareness of limitations, and prone to errors of judgement and faulty practice

     

CR

CREDIT REFUSED

Failure to comply, in the absence of good cause, with the published requirements of the course or programme; and/or a serious breach of regulations

   

The 16 point grade scale previously shown in Schedule C has been discontinued. Revised grade point values, which should be used for all programmes, are shown in Schedule A.


Schedule D

SCHEDULE D

Credits

Levels 1 & 2

Levels 3, H and M

10

90 minutes

120 minutes

15

120 minutes

150 minutes

20

150 minutes

180 minutes

30

240 minutes

240 minutes

40

330 minutes

330 minutes

60

480 minutes

480 minutes


Notes on Schedules

1 Verbal Descriptors

Documentation relating to courses and programmes shall indicate where Schedule A and Schedule B verbal descriptors shall apply.

2 Discretion of Boards of Examiners for Classified Honours Programmes[18]

a) Where the grade point average (as determined in §16.34) falls within one of the following ranges, the Board of Examiners shall recommend the award stated:

18.0 to 22.0 first class honours

15.0 to 17.0 upper second class honours

12.0 to 14.0 lower second class honours

9.0 to 11.0 third class honours

0.0 to 8.0 fail

b) Where the grade point average falls between two of the ranges defined in 2(a), the Board of Examiners shall have discretion to decide which of the alternative awards to recommend:

17.1 to 17.9 either first or upper second class honours

14.1 to 14.9 either upper or lower second class honours

11.1 to 11.9 either lower second or third class honours

8.1 to 8.9 either third class honours or fail



[1] The term 'course' refers to a self-contained unit of study on a particular topic with defined level, credit value, aims, intended learning outcomes, mode(s) of delivery, scheme of assessment and possibly also pre- and co-requisites.

[2] Information about the SCQF may be obtained at: www.scqf.org.uk/

[3] This includes offering reassessment in sub-components.

[4] In cases where candidates present sensitive personal information which they are reluctant to discuss with more than one or two members of staff, a member of staff should be given responsibility by the Head of School for ensuring that relevant information is passed to appropriate colleagues in order for extensions to be considered.

[5] Where in accordance with §16.27(a)(ii) feedback on assessed work is returned less than five working days after the submission deadline, the limit to deferral of a candidate’s submission deadline or exemption from late penalty will be the time at which feedback on the work is provided to the class.

[6] In the event that this facility is not available, the candidate should contact the Head of School or their nominee directly. In cases where candidates present sensitive personal information which they are reluctant to discuss with more than one or two members of staff, a member of staff should be given responsibility by the Head of School for ensuring that relevant information is passed to appropriate colleagues in order for extensions to be considered.

In addition to submitting a claim to MyCampus the candidate is also advised to alert a member of staff such as their Adviser of Studies/Advising Team or Assessment Officer to the claim in order that it may be considered promptly.

[7] The nominee of the Head of School or Research Institute with responsibility for considering such claims shall be indicated in the programme handbook. Such a nominee will typically be an Honours Convener, Head of Year, Programme Convener, or the holder of another similar senior role. 

[8] A candidate wishing to apply for deferral of a submission deadline should submit a claim as soon as they become aware of the relevant circumstances. Where a claim is submitted shortly before the submission deadline it may not be possible for the candidate to be advised of the outcome of the claim before that deadline.

[9] A grade point mean should be rounded in accordance with the following example: 15.5 and all higher values less than 16.5 should become 16.

[10] The College Board of Studies may authorise the setting of a higher percentage of submission in which event that higher percentage must be clearly set out in the School Instructions issued to all candidates enrolled in the course.

[11] §16.27 sets out penalties for late submission of coursework; these will not be applied in the event of good cause being demonstrated. In the event of coursework being submitted not more than three days late as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the candidate, the candidate may apply for exemption from these penalties - see §16.28. If a candidate is so permitted to defer submission of coursework, the ‘due time’ hereafter in these regulations will be the later time permitted.

[12] A candidate experiencing chronic or persistent illness or long-term adverse personal circumstances is encouraged at as early a stage as possible to contact appropriate sources of support such as their Adviser of Study/Advising Team and the Disability Service. The Fitness to Study Procedure may be used to consider how best to support any such candidate in their studies.

[13] The Student Absence Policy is available online at at https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_129312_en.pdf.

[14] The mechanism for notifying the Head of School or Research Institute is MyCampus. In the event that this facility is not available, the candidate should contact the Head of School or their nominee directly.

In cases where candidates present sensitive personal information which they are reluctant to discuss with more than one or two members of staff, a member of staff should be given responsibility by the Head of School or Research Institute for ensuring that relevant information is passed to appropriate colleagues in order that their circumstances may be taken into account.

Where a candidate is seeking an extension of more than five working days to a coursework submission date they should submit a claim of good cause to MyCampus but is also advised to alert a member of staff such as Adviser of Studies or Assessment Officer to the claim in order that it may be considered promptly.

[15] The nominee of the Head of School or Research Institute with responsibility for considering such claims shall be indicated in the programme handbook. Such a nominee will typically be an Honours Convener, Head of Year, Programme Convener or holder of another similar senior role.

[16] Head of School means the Head or Heads of School or Schools responsible for the course, or other equivalent officers.

[17] In scheduling examinations, the Registry shall take reasonable steps to ensure that no candidate is normally required to sit more than three examinations in two days and shall avoid, as far as possible, a candidate sitting a morning examination the day after an evening examination.

[18] Guidelines for Boards of Examiners on the exercise of discretion are available at: www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_124293_en.pdf#page=14&view=fitH,535

Back to Contents List