< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Report of the General Board on amendments to the regulations for Part III of the Natural Sciences Tripos relating to Chemistry

The GENERAL BOARD beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. The General Board have received a proposal from the Faculty Board of Physics and Chemistry that the regulations governing Part III of the Natural Sciences Tripos be amended so that the Examiners for Part III (Chemistry), in drawing up the class list, may take into account the marks obtained in Part II (Chemistry) in the previous year. In effect, this will make it possible for marks in this subject to be carried forward from one Honours Examination to the next.

2. Over the past few years four-year courses in certain Natural Science subjects, such as Chemistry, have been introduced. In the negotiations at national level which led to the establishment of four-year degrees in science it was clearly understood that although these courses could lead to a Master's qualification, the Master of Natural Sciences (M.Sci.), they are nevertheless first degrees, rather than postgraduate degrees.

3. In the case of Chemistry the programme of study is constructed so that the final two years (specifically, Part II Option B and Part III) form a single course. In Part II the students cover the foundations of chemistry, both in lectures and in practical work; there is relatively little specialization permitted. In contrast, in Part III (Chemistry) the course consists of a large number of options together with a fourteen-week research project, allowing the student to specialize to a large extent. Therefore, when taken together, the final two years provide the coverage of fundamental chemistry and the opportunity for advanced study which the Department of Chemistry considers to be required for the M.Sci. Degree.

4. The Faculty Board now propose that, in the case of Chemistry, the class awarded at the end of the final year should reflect a student's achievement over the previous two years, that is Part II and Part III (Chemistry). The reasons why this change is being sought are threefold:

(a) As has been described above in paragraph 3, in the case of Chemistry the final two years of the course are seen as a whole. It is therefore appropriate, and in tune with the educational aims of the course, that the class of degree awarded at the end of the final year should reflect achievement over the previous two years.

(b) The External Examiners in Chemistry have criticized consistently the final-year examinations for being based on too narrow a range of material. They recognize that the more fundamental material has been examined in earlier Tripos examinations, but they note that this assessment does not contribute to the marks before them in the fourth year. The possibility of including a component of the marks carried forward from a previous year has been recommended repeatedly by the External Examiners.

(c) The class achieved in the final year is sometimes taken to be synonymous with the 'class of degree'. In the case of a four-year degree in Cambridge, this puts too much emphasis on the result in the final year. This problem is well illustrated by the eligibility rules for Ph.D. studentships operated by the research councils. The EPSRC and PPARC have recognized that the way Cambridge graduates are classed is somewhat different from the norm and so will accept a II.1 in either Part II or Part III as the minimum grade. However, the BBSRC and NERC, despite repeated approaches from the Department of Chemistry, insist on a II.1 in the final year.

5. In putting forward this proposal, the Faculty Board are aware that a much valued feature of the Cambridge Tripos system is that, as each part of the Tripos is separate, transfers between subjects are straightforward; the concept of carrying forward marks from one Part to another is simply not catered for in any existing regulations and indeed is in opposition to many existing principles. Any system by which marks were carried forward would make it difficult to transfer from one Tripos to another or from one subject to another. In general this is a strong argument. However, in the case of Part III (Chemistry) it is not practicable for students to take the course unless they have completed Part II (Chemistry) Option B and the Faculty Board have existing rules which require honours in Part II Option B as a condition for entry to Part III.

6. One possible disadvantage of the proposed scheme is that some students might be burdened with a poor performance in a previous Tripos examination. However, for the case of Chemistry, the Faculty Board believe that Part II Option B and Part III are seen as a whole and so it is entirely appropriate to give a class in Part III which reflects the student's performance in different aspects of two years of study. Indeed it is in the students' interests to carry forward marks so that they can achieve credit for work over the whole period. The position is quite different from that in Parts IA and IB, for example, where students take examinations that are unfamiliar in style and which include subjects that they may well drop in subsequent years.

7. Although the vast majority of candidates would have a suitable mark from Part II (Chemistry) Option B which can be carried forward to Part III, a very small number will have experienced special circumstances which result in them having no appropriate marks for Part II Option B; these candidates will have been 'declared to have deserved honours' or 'allowed the examination'. In such cases the class awarded would be based soley on the marks achieved in the Part III examinations. No changes to the regulations for the three-year course (Part II Chemistry Option A) are proposed.

8. At this stage, the other Departments in the Faculty which offer Part III courses (Physics and Materials Science and Metallurgy) do not wish to have the option of carrying forward marks. This is because their courses are structured in a different way to the Chemistry course and as a result the completely separate assessment of Part II and Part III is appropriate. The Faculty as a whole is clear in its support for the proposal from the Department of Chemistry.

9. The General Board recognize that a consequence of adopting these regulations for Part III Chemistry would be that the award of honours in Part III Natural Sciences would carry a different meaning in different subjects.

10. The General Board have considered the proposals put forward by the Faculty Board of Physics and Chemistry and have agreed with them that there is a strong educational argument in the case of Chemistry to carry marks forward from Part II to Part III of the Natural Sciences Tripos. They accordingly recommend:

I. That the proposals of the Faculty Board of Physics and Chemistry that the regulations governing Part III of the Natural Sciences Tripos be amended so that the Examiners for Part III (Chemistry) may take into account the marks obtained in Part II (Chemistry) be approved.

II. That the regulations for the Natural Sciences Tripos be amended, with effect from 1 October 2003, as follows:

Regulation 36.

By adding the following sentence to the end of the regulation:

In arranging the class-list the Examiners for the subject Chemistry in Part III shall take into account the candidate's performance in Part II, where that candidate has been classed in that examination.

25 February 2002 ALEC N. BROERS, Vice-Chancellor ANDREW CLIFF A. C. MINSON
  A. J. BADGER MALCOLM GRANT KATE PRETTY
  P. J. BAYLEY J. C. GRAY M. SCHOFIELD
  N. BULLOCK PETER LIPTON S. J. YOUNG
  H. A. CHASE  

< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Cambridge University Reporter, 27 February 2002
Copyright © 2001 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.