Previous page
Table of Contents
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
The COUNCIL and the GENERAL BOARD beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. During the academical year 1997-98 the Council and the General Board established a Working Group under the Chairmanship of Baroness O'Neill to consider whether the University should introduce a procedure for review in relation to the examination results of students other than Graduate Students (Graduate Students are defined as students registered with the Board of Graduate Studies). The Working Group reported during the Michaelmas Term 1999, and their report is attached as an Annex. The principal conclusions of the Working Group may be summarized as follows:
| (a) | The present informal practice for dealing with representations about the conduct of examinations is reasonably effective; but it lacks transparency and provides no means for resolving cases where the parties concerned remain dissatisfied when matters have been concluded. |
| (b) | Transparent procedures should be put in place for dealing with representations about the conduct of examinations, and an Examinations Review Committee should be established. In particular: |
| (i) | It should be possible for complaints about the conduct of an examination arising before the outcome of an examination is known to be submitted in time for consideration at the final meeting of Examiners. A formal response should be made to the candidate concerned. |
| (ii) | It should be possible for representations about the outcome of an examination to be submitted within a reasonable period after the signing of the list of successful candidates. The Chairman of Examiners should arrange for the representations to be considered by the relevant Examiners. A formal response should be made to the candidate concerned. |
| (iii) | An Examinations Review Committee should be established to deal with any cases which are not resolved through the procedures in (i) and (ii) above. |
| (c) | The arrangements for dealing with candidates who have been hindered by illness or other grave cause in preparing for or taking examinations are for the most part satisfactory. In particular, medical and other evidence should continue to be considered and evaluated only by the Applications Committee of the Council. Examiners should continue not to be asked to make hypothetical judgements about how a candidate might have performed had circumstances been different. These arrangements continue to have significant advantages in terms of quality assurance. Nevertheless, some changes should be made to the regu-lations for examination allowances to widen the range of options available for dealing with candidates who have missed a relatively small part of an examination for good cause (or taken a small part of an examination under a significant disadvantage); at present such candidates may be declared to have deserved honours, but they cannot be awarded a class which reflects their performance in the greater part of the examination. |
2. The Working Group's report was circulated for comment to a wide range of bodies, including Faculty Boards, the Board of Examinations, the Senior Tutors' Committee, and Cambridge University Students Union. In the light of the responses from these bodies, which contained substantial support for the recommendations of the Working Group, the Council and the General Board have agreed to put forward proposals for the introduction of a formal review procedure for undergraduate and certain other examinations. The proposals exclude examinations for which candidates are required to be registered as Graduate Students for whom a review procedure is already in place (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 397), and students falling within the scope of the Board of Continuing Education for whom there is a formal academic appeals procedure published in the handbook for continuing education students. The Board of Graduate Studies have under consideration a proposal for extending the scope of the review procedure for Graduate Students to include candidates for the Master of Studies Degree. Proposals are also put forward for amending the regulations for examination allowances, along the lines recommended by the Working Group.
3. As a separate matter the Council and the General Board, through their Joint Advisory Committee on Student Matters, have under consideration procedures for other areas in which student complaints and appeals may arise, and they expect to report to the University on this matter in due course.
4. The Working Group's report recommended that all representations on behalf of a candidate should be submitted through a Tutor. However the Council and the General Board are of the view that, in the context of a formal review procedure, it is essential that there should be no restriction imposed by the University on how a candidate's case may be presented. They have accordingly agreed to propose that formal responsibility for submitting representations should rest with the candidate. They would however expect that, in the great majority of cases, the candidate would seek advice from a Tutor before deciding to make formal representations, and that the candidate would normally ask the Tutor to act on the candidate's behalf in making any submission.
5. The proposed procedure allows for complaints about the conduct of an examination to be submitted in advance of the final meeting of Examiners so that they can be considered by the whole body of Examiners. Such complaints, which might relate to the administrative arrangements for the examination or to perceived errors in question papers, should become apparent very quickly. It is proposed that there should normally be a time-limit of three days (excluding Saturdays and Sundays) for the submission of such complaints after the student concerned has completed all parts of the examination. The Examiners would be expected to take the complaints into account at their final meeting. It is expected that this procedure will resolve the great majority of such complaints.
6. The proposals also allow for the submission of representations about examination results after the class-list has been published. The submission of a complaint in advance of the final meeting of Examiners would not preclude the submission of further representations after the publication of the class-list. It is proposed that the Chairman of Examiners may appoint a deputy or deputies from among the Examiners to act on his or her behalf in connection with any matters arising after the signing of the class-list.
7. Under the proposed procedure, all representations would be made to the Registrary who would thereupon arrange for their transmission to the relevant Chair-man of Examiners for consideration. As a matter of procedure, copies of representations would also be sent to the relevant Senior Examiner where appropriate. The Council and the General Board do not think it would be useful to propose regulations limiting the range of representations which may be submitted at this initial stage. There should however be no presumption that a script should be re-marked by an independent Examiner merely on the basis that a candidate is disappointed by the mark awarded. In most cases all that may be needed is a check that all sections of the script have been marked and that the marks have been correctly totalled and recorded. There will normally be no case for the re-marking of a script where the script has already been assessed in accordance with the standard procedures for the examination concerned, and under the usual conditions of candidate anonymity. The Council and the General Board are of the view that the decision on how to handle representations at the initial stage should be left to the Chairman of Examiners, in the light of the nature of the representations. If a mistake is discovered through this process which requires the amendment of a class-list, the amendment would be made in accordance with Regulation 7 of the regulations for the publication of lists of successful candidates in examinations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 213).
8. If, after the conclusion of the above procedures, the candidate believes that the examination process has not been satisfactory, it is proposed that the candidate may apply for the case to be considered by an Examinations Review Committee. It is proposed that the powers of this Committee should be limited to those of review, as is provided in the regulations for the review of the results of postgraduate examinations. An Examinations Review Committee would not therefore operate as an appeal body with power to overturn the decision of the Examiners. In particular, the Committee would not be empowered to engage in any process requiring it to exercise academic judgement.
9. The Council and the General Board propose a constitution for an Examinations Review Committee which is less elaborate than that proposed by the Working Group. The aim is to ensure that a Review Committee can be constituted with the minimum of delay, and that all cases can be speedily resolved. It is proposed that a Review Committee should consist of a Chairman with appropriate experience in matters of fair procedure appointed by the Council, one member external to the University appointed by the General Board, and two other members appointed by the General Board from a standing panel of potential members. The Board would be expected to ensure that no member of a Review Committee had any previous connection with the case. The Board would also be expected to ensure that members of Review Committees were offered appropriate guidance on matters of procedure and good practice. It is an important principle that justice must be seen to be done, and it is accordingly proposed that a complainant may object for good cause to any member appointed to a Review Committee. It is proposed that the Vice-Chancellor should be empowered to rule on any such objection, and it would be expected that the Vice-Chancellor would have the above principle in mind in exercising this power.
10. It is proposed that the Examinations Review Committee should operate in a similar manner to that of the Review Committee for postgraduate qualifications. However, with a view to expediting the process, it is proposed that the representations on behalf of the candidate should be referred for written comment to the Chairman of Examiners and to the Secretary of the Board of Examinations, rather than to the complete body of Examiners and to the complete Board of Examinations; and that the opportunity to comment on the responses from those persons should be restricted to the complainant. The proposed remedies available to the Review Committee would necessarily be those of a body of review rather than of appeal, as set out in proposed Regulation 16.
11. If the recommendations of this Report are approved, the Council and the General Board intend to prepare notes of guidance to candidates, Tutors, and Examiners on the operation of the new arrangements. These notes will be made widely available. The Council and the General Board will ask the Registrary to submit routine reports to the General Board and the Board of Examinations on the cases dealt with under the new arrangements. It is also intended that the new arrangements should be reviewed after three years of operation.
12. The Council and the General Board concur in the view of the Working Party that the present arrangements for dealing with candidates who are hindered by disability, illness, or other grave cause in preparing for or taking examinations do not require substantial change. Such candidates may be examined under special conditions, usually in College, with the aim of relieving them as far as possible of their disadvantage. The Council and the General Board firmly support the arrangement whereby Examiners at this University assess the work which is presented to them without regard to other factors, and with the Council through the Applications Committee being the body which considers special factors and makes appropriate allowances. The Council and the General Board nevertheless agree with the Working Party that some improvements should be made to the regulations for examination allowances as described below.
13. The Working Party proposed that it should be open to the Council (through the Applications Committee) to amend the class awarded to a candidate in circumstances where the candidate has taken all but a relatively small part of the examination normally and has either (i) been absent for good cause from a relatively small part of an examination, or (ii) taken a relatively small part of the examination under special difficulty. Under the present regulations for allow-ances to candidates for examinations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 206), in case (i) the Examiners may be authorized to declare the candidate to have deserved honours if the candidate has performed with credit in a substantial part of the examination, and in case (ii) the Council may withdraw the candidate from the class-list and declare the candidate to have deserved honours. Although these arrangements work reasonably well, it is nevertheless clear that the term 'Declared to have deserved honours' is not well understood outside the University, and that it would be preferable if an actual class could be awarded wherever possible, subject to proper safeguards.
14. The Council and the General Board are persuaded that, subject to the Applications Committee being satisfied with the bona fides of the case after their expert assessment of the medical and other evidence, it should be permissible for a candidate who has missed a relatively small part of an examination for good cause, or who has taken a relatively small part of an examination under special difficulty, to be awarded a class based on the candidate's performance in those papers and other components of the examination which were taken without the handicap, provided that those papers and other components constitute all but a relatively small part of the examination.
15. The Council and the General Board are firmly of the view that any decision on the assignment of a candidate to a particular class must rest with the Examiners and not with the Council through the Applications Committee. Ideally the matter would be discussed by the whole body of Examiners, but in practice this will not normally be possible: the final meetings of Examiners will usually have taken place before the Applications Committee can receive and evaluate the application and supporting evidence. It is therefore proposed that, in cases where the Applications Committee are satisfied with the evidence, they should be empowered to authorize the Chairman of Examiners (or a deputy appointed by the Chairman from among the Examiners) to classify a candidate on the basis of all but a relatively small part of the examination. In this way the final decision would rest with the Chairman of Examiners, although it is proposed that the Chairman should be required to consult at least two other Examiners before reaching a decision. The Applications Committee would decide that the candidate could be classed on less than the whole of the examination; but the decision on the class to be awarded would be taken only by the Examiners.
16. The Council and the General Board have considered whether the opportunity should be taken to abolish 'Declared to have deserved honours' as a possible examination outcome. Their present view is that it would be better to wait until an assessment can be made of the effectiveness of the new arrangements before taking such a step, particularly as there may still be cases where a candidate who has been declared to have deserved honours cannot reliably be placed in a particular class. They have accordingly agreed not to propose a radical re-structuring of the regulations for allowances, at least for the present. They have however agreed to propose the attachment of a brief explanation of the term 'Declared to have deserved honours' to transcripts issued by the Registrary.
17. The Council and the General Board recommend:
I. That, with effect from 1 October 2000, the following regulations for examinations be approved.
1. The following regulations shall apply to any University examination listed in the Schedule to these regulations.
2. No representations under these regulations shall be considered unless they relate to the conduct of an examination.
3. No representations under Regulation 5 shall be considered if they reach the Registrary later than 4 p.m. on the third day (excluding Saturday and Sunday) after the candidate concerned has completed all parts of his or her examination. In exceptional circumstances the Registrary may allow a short extension of this deadline.
4. No representations under Regulation 6 shall be considered if they reach the Registrary later than one month after the date upon which the list of successful candidates is signed. In exceptional circumstances the Registrary may allow an extension of this deadline.
5. Representations concerning the conduct of an examination arising before the list of successful candidates is signed shall be submitted to the Registrary by the candidate or by a Tutor on the candidate's behalf. The Registrary shall thereupon refer the representations to the Chairman of Examiners for consideration by the Examiners at their final meeting. The Examiners shall take whatever action they think fit in the light of the representations. Within one week of the signing of the list of successful candidates, the Chairman shall submit a report to the Registrary including an explanation of the action taken by the Examiners on the representations. The Registrary shall thereupon send a copy of that report to the candidate, to the Tutor (if any) submitting the representations, and to the Senior Tutor of the candidate's College. If the representations reach the Chairman of Examiners after the final meeting they shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 6.
6. Representations concerning the conduct of an examination arising after the list of successful candidates is signed shall be submitted to the Registrary by the candidate or by a Tutor on the candidate's behalf. The Registrary shall thereupon refer the representations to the Chairman of Examiners. The representations shall be considered by the Chairman and at least two other Examiners. Within one month of receiving the representations the Chairman shall submit a report to the Registrary including an explanation of any action which the Chairman has taken on the representations. The Registrary shall thereupon send a copy of that report to the candidate, to the Tutor (if any) submitting the representations, and to the Senior Tutor of the candidate's College.
7. If the candidate concerned is dissatisfied with the response from the Chairman of Examiners, the candidate may apply to the Registrary for the matter to be considered by an Examinations Review Committee constituted in accordance with Regulation 8, provided that such an application shall not normally be considered unless it is received by the Registrary within three months of the date on which the report from the Chairman of Examiners is communicated in accordance with Regulation 5 or 6, as appropriate. In exceptional circumstances the Registrary may allow an extension of this deadline.
8. A Review Committee appointed under these regulations shall consist of four members as follows:
| (a) | one member, who shall have appropriate experience in matters of procedure, appointed by the Council, as Chairman; |
| (b) | one member who is external to the University appointed by the General Board; |
| (c) | two members of the Regent House appointed by the General Board. |
9. The General Board shall maintain a panel of members of the Regent House who are willing to serve as members of a Review Committee in class (c), and shall appoint twelve persons to the panel, four persons being appointed in the Michaelmas Term of each year to serve for three years from 1 January following their appointment. When any representations are to be referred to a Review Committee, the General Board shall appoint two members of the panel for appointment as members of the Review Committee for the particular case. In selecting members of the panel for appointment as members of a Review Committee, the Board shall exclude any person who has been involved in the particular case at an earlier stage. A person appointed a member of a Review Committee shall serve until the conclusion of the particular case for which he or she was appointed.
10. The Registrary, or a deputy appointed by the Registrary, shall act as Secretary to a Review Committee.
11. The Secretary to the Review Committee shall notify the candidate of the persons appointed to be members of the Review Committee. The candidate shall be entitled to object for good cause to any member so appointed. The Vice-Chancellor shall rule on any such objection, and his or her decision shall be final. If the Vice-Chancellor allows such an objection, another member shall be appointed to replace the person who was the subject of the objection.
12. A Review Committee shall consider any representations which are referred to them under Regulation 7 which in the judgement of the Committee constitutes a complaint on one or more of the following grounds:
| (a) | that there existed material circumstances relating to the conduct of the examination (excluding circumstances relating to the candidate's course of study) of which the Examiners were unaware; |
| (b) | that procedural irregularities occurred in the conduct of the examination, which were of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt as to whether the Examiners would have reached the same conclusion had the irregularities not occurred; |
| (c) | that there is evidence of prejudice, bias, or inadequate assessment in the examination process. |
If the Committee are of the view that the case does not fall within any of the grounds specified above, they shall dismiss the complaint and shall inform the candidate accordingly.
13. When a representation is to be considered by a Review Committee the candidate shall furnish a full statement of the complaint and of the grounds on which it is based, which shall be submitted to the Review Committee not later than a date to be determined by them. Any statement of a complaint received by the Review Committee shall be made available to each of the following:
| (a) | the Secretary of the Board of Examinations; |
| (b) | the Chairman of Examiners; |
| (c) | any person against whom a complaint is laid; |
| (d) | any other person specified by the Review Committee. |
Each of these persons shall be given an opportunity to submit a written statement to the Committee in response to the complaint. The Committee shall have power to seek statements from other persons or bodies, as they think fit.
14. Any statement submitted to the Review Committee under Regulation 13 shall be made available to the candidate who shall be afforded an opportunity to comment upon it.
15. The Committee shall appoint a day and time for a hearing at which the candidate shall be entitled to be present and to be accompanied by a Tutor or other adviser being either a junior member of the University, an officer of Cambridge University Students Union, or a member of the Regent House; any person accompanying the candidate shall be permitted to act as the candidate's representative and to speak on his or her behalf.
16. A Review Committee shall consider any complaint referred to them under Regulation 7 and shall have power to dismiss the complaint or, if they consider it justified:
| (a) | to require the Chairman of Examiners to re-convene as many of the original Examiners as can conveniently be assembled for the purpose of reconsidering their earlier decisions on the particular case, no fewer than three Examiners inclusive of the Chairman to constitute a quorum; or |
| (b) | to require the General Board to appoint one or more additional Examiners to make an independent report or reports on the work presented by the candidate, and to require the Chairman of Examiners to convene a meeting of as many of the original Examiners as can conveniently be assembled together with the additional Examiner or Examiners to reconsider the earlier decisions on the particular case, no fewer than three of the original Examiners inclusive of the Chairman, and the additional Examiner or Examiners, to constitute a quorum; or |
| (c) | to require the candidate to be re-examined under whatever arrangements may be specified by the Review Committee, after consultation with the Chairman of Examiners. |
17. The Secretary of the Review Committee shall send written notification of the Committee's decision and the reasons for it to the candidate, the Chairman of Examiners, and to the other parties specified in Regulation 13.
18. Subject to any other provisions of the Statutes and Ordinances, the decision of a Review Committee on a particular case shall be final.
19. The Chairman of Examiners may appoint a deputy or deputies from among the Examiners to act on his or her behalf in relation to the foregoing regulations during the Chairman's absence from Cambridge or for other good cause.
Schedule of examinations for which the foregoing regulations apply.
Examinations, including where appropriate Preliminary, Ordinary, and Qualifying examinations, taken by matriculated students and leading to the following qualifications:
| B.A. Degree B.Th. Degree B.Ed. Degree M.B., B.Chir. Degrees Mus.B. Degree Vet. M.B. Degree |
LL.M. Degree M.Eng. Degree M.Sci. Degree M.B.A. Degree M.Ed. Degree |
| Diplomas in: | |
|
Architecture |
Modern Languages |
| Certificate of Advanced Study in Mathematics Certificate in Modern Languages Postgraduate Certificate in Design, Manufacture, and Management Postgraduate Certificate in Education Examination in Criminal Law Examination in Law for European Students |
|
II. That, with effect from 1 October 2000, the regulations for allowances to candidates for examinations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 206) be amended as follows.
(A) Regulation 3.
By amending sub-paragraph (d) so as to read:
| (d) | If the candidate has attended the whole or part of the examination and has obtained honours by the inclusion of his or her name in one of the classes |
| (i) to remove the candidate's name from the class concerned and to declare the candidate to have deserved honours; | ||
| or | (ii) to authorize the Chairman of Examiners, or a deputy appointed by the Chairman from among the Examiners, to move the candidate's name to a higher class, provided that such an amendment shall not be made unless the Chairman of Examiners or deputy, after consulting at least two other Examiners, is satisfied that the candidate has performed at the standard of the higher class in all but a relatively small part of the examination. |
By inserting a new sub-paragraph (e) so as to read:
| (e) | If the candidate has attended part of the examination and has been declared to have deserved honours in accordance with (b)(i) |
| to authorize the Chairman of Examiners, or a deputy appointed by the Chairman from among the Examiners, to include the candidate's name in one of the classes, provided that such an amendment shall not be made unless the Chairman of Examiners or deputy, after consulting at least two other Examiners, is satisfied that the candidate has performed at the standard of the class concerned in all but a relatively small part of the examination. |
(B) By adding the following as Regulation 8:
8. In the case of a candidate who has been declared to have deserved honours under Regulation 3(b)(i) or 3(d)(i), at the request of the candidate the following statement shall be appended to any certificate issued by the Registrary relating to that examination:
This candidate, who was absent from part of the examination for good cause, performed with credit in a substantial part of it. In accordance with the University's regulations the authorities concerned are of the opinion that it would be unfair to classify the candidate on the basis of the incomplete performance since they believe that this would not adequately represent the candidate's attainment. They have accordingly agreed to declare the candidate to have deserved honours in this examination.
12 June 2000
| ALEC N. BROERS, Vice-Chancellor A. J. BADGER G. R. EVANS A. L. R. FINDLAY L. GROO DAVID HARRISON GORDON JOHNSON |
T. JONES MELISSA LANE JOHN A. LEAKE A. M. LONSDALE M. D. MACLEOD ONORA O'NEILL |
M. PEPPER JEREMY SANDERS M. SARDY M. SCHOFIELD DAVID M. THOMPSON R. E. THORNTON |
24 May 2000
| ALEC N. BROERS, Vice-Chancellor P. J. BAYLEY KEITH GLOVER MALCOLM GRANT |
BRIAN F. G. JOHNSON JOHN A. LEAKE PETER LIPTON N. J. MACKINTOSH |
ADRIAN POOLE KATE PRETTY M. SCHOFIELD |
The Council and the General Board wish to point out that the report of their Working Group, which is published below, includes references to matters such as examination procedures and the role of the Commissary which are beyond the scope of their Joint Report. Further consideration will be given to these additional matters in due course. It should be noted that the Working Group's recommendations differ on points of detail from the formal recommendations set out in the Joint Report.
1.1 The second Nolan Committee report 'Standards in Public Life: Local Public Spending Bodies' published in May 1996 made the following recommendation:
Students in Higher Education Institutions should be able to appeal to an independent body, and this right should be reflected in the Higher Education Charters.
1.2 In their report of July 1997, the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE) alluded to the Nolan recommendations, and endorsed them, in their own Recommendation 60:
We recommend to institutions that, over the next two years, they review and, if necessary, amend their arrangements for handling complaints by students to ensure that: they reflect the principles of natural justice; they are transparent and timely; they include procedures for reconciliation and arbitration; they include an independent, external element, and they are managed by a senior member of staff.
1.3 In response to the Nolan and Dearing recommendations, the Council and the General Board established various groups including a Working Group in 1997-98, comprised of representatives of the Council, the General Board, the Board of Examinations, the Senior Tutors' Committee, and the CUSU as follows:
| Chair | Dr O. S. O'Neill |
| Applications Committee | Dr T. S. Adkins |
| Board of Examinations | Dr G. A. Reid Dr P. Hutchinson |
| General Board | Professor J. E. Carroll Dr D. A. Good |
| Senior Tutors' Committee | Dr K. M. Bowkett Mr R. G. Jobling |
| CUSU | Academic Affairs Officer Welfare Officer |
| Secretary | Ms J. C. Williams |
1.4 The Terms of Reference of this group were as follows:
1. To consider, in the light of the recommendations of the Second Nolan Report on Standards in Public Life, whether the University should introduce a procedure for review in relation to the examination results of students other than Graduate Students.
2. To take into consideration the following particular questions:
| (i) | whether the present informal arrangements for dealing with complaints about the conduct of examinations, and with queries about examination results, should be placed on a more formal basis; |
| (ii) | whether, under any new arrangements, review should be allowed on grounds of alleged inappropriate or inadequate assessment on the part of Examiners, and whether there are other grounds which should be taken into account; |
| (iii) | whether the University's present arrangements for dealing with sick and disabled examination candidates should continue in their present form. |
3. To consider possible mechanisms by which the review of examination results might be undertaken.
4. To prepare a discussion paper on the above matters for consideration in the first instance by the Council and the General Board, and thereafter more widely within the University.
1.5 A preliminary University- and College-wide consultation was undertaken during the Long Vacation 1998, to gather opinion and comment on the present informal system for the review of results, and complaints about examinations. We are grateful to all those in Faculties, Departments, and Colleges who responded to the consultation. A short summary of the views expressed is contained in Appendix I.
2.1 Candidates with a known disability are catered for by the University and Colleges during examinations, by provision of special examination conditions, extra time for individual papers, amanuenses, and so on. The University seeks to ensure that those who may be predictably disadvantaged by 'normal' examination conditions, are placed on equal terms for competing with those without disabilities. The purpose of these arrangements is to relieve candidates of disadvantage, and to allow Examiners to mark all scripts on the same basis. Responses to the consultation indicated that the current arrangements for students with disabilities to sit examinations commanded a great deal of support across the University and Colleges. We do not believe that there is any deficiency in provision in this area, nor do we believe that students with disabilities gain any advantage through the use of special conditions. We therefore do not propose to recommend any change to current practice.
3.1 Throughout this paper, we have used the term 'query' to cover in general terms, all types of difficulties, questions, issues, and complaints which may possibly be raised by students with regard to their examinations.
3.2 Examinations and examination results might be queried for a great variety of reasons. Some queries are about the conduct of examinations: the conditions in the examination room or in a College room if an exam was taken there, may be thought inadequate; instructions may have been ambiguous or inadequate; or arrangements made for candidates with disabilities may be thought inappropriate, for example. Any evidence on which such queries might be based is generally available when the examination is taken.
3.3 Sometimes there may be queries which are not immediately apparent in the examination room, but equally, do not have to wait until the publication of the class-list before being raised. This category might include, for example, queries about coverage in examination papers (inadequate or improper coverage of question papers, i.e. whether a paper is fair with respect to the course taught), or alleged bias on the part of an examiner, for example at an oral examination.
3.4 Other queries are about the outcomes of examinations: the mark given for a particular paper, or the classification for an examination as a whole, may seem surprising. Such information is of necessity not available to candidates until after classification, and may not be available to candidates even at that stage.
3.5 In reviewing the University's provision for dealing with queries about examinations we have mainly concentrated on queries about the outcomes of examinations. However, queries about the conduct of examinations can give rise to subsequent queries about their outcomes. For example, one reason why a mark might surprise could be that inadequate conditions were provided for taking the examination, or that instructions were not correctly given. So any adequate way of handling queries about examinations must include an adequate way of handling queries about results which might be traced to problems with the conduct of examinations. It is also vital, under formalized procedures, to ensure that a full audit trail is available.
4.1 The publication of the Nolan and Dearing reports on the need for accessible and transparent procedures for dealing with queries, including provision for appeals, provides an opportunity for the University to examine its long-standing arrangements critically with a view to ensuring that they are robust, defensible, user-friendly, and in line with the requirements envisaged.
4.2 At present the following arrangements apply for handling queries. Tutors are advised that such queries should be raised with the Deputy Registrary in the first instance.
(a) Queries arising before the publication of the class-list
If a query is raised with the Deputy Registrary about a matter which has arisen in the course of an examination, and before the publication of the class-list (perhaps a query about examination conditions), he refers the matter to the Chairman of Examiners with the request that the Examiners take whatever action they think fit in assessing work which may have been affected. No further action is taken by the Deputy Registrary; although there is no formal provision for feedback to the candidate or his or her College, the Chairman of Examiners may well make some feedback.
(b) Queries about examination results
If a query is raised with the Deputy Registrary after the publication of the class-list (perhaps in connection with a mark awarded to a candidate for a particular paper) and the query appears prima facie to merit investigation, the Deputy Registrary refers it to the relevant Chairman of Examiners or Senior Examiner for investigation. If the Chairman of Examiners or Senior Examiner detects a clerical mistake, for example, a misrecorded mark, it is rectified and the candidate's marks and (if necessary) class are adjusted and an amendment to the class-list published. On average about ten such queries each year are received by the Deputy Registrary. We note however, that it is possible that the numbers are small because of the absence of a more explicit procedure and the narrowness of the grounds on which examination results may be queried. Present arrangements do not provide procedures for candidates who believe their examination performance should be reconsidered for other wider procedural or substantive reasons.
(c) Queries arising from individual circumstances
If a query is raised at any stage with the Deputy Registrary because an individual student has suffered illness or other grave misfortune in preparing for or taking an examination, he refers the matter to the Applications Committee which may allow the examination or declare the candidate to have deserved honours. The formal regulations followed by the Applications Committee in recommending allowances for candidates who have been hindered by illness or other grave cause in preparing for or taking an examination, include the following:
| (i) | In the case of a candidate who has missed an examination altogether, or who has taken all or part of an examination and failed, to allow the examination. This is the equivalent of awarding unclassified honours. |
| (ii) | In the case of a candidate who has missed part of an examination, to authorize the Examiners to declare the candidate to have deserved honours if the Examiners judge the candidate to have performed with credit in a substantial part of the examination. |
| (iii) | In the case of a candidate who has obtained a class which seriously misrepresents his or her ability, to remove the candidate's name from the class concerned, and to declare the candidate to have deserved honours. |
5.1 Cambridge resembles most other universities in having procedures (albeit informal ones) for dealing with:
| (a) | irregularities in the conduct of examinations; |
| (b) | clerical mistakes in the recording of examination marks; |
| (c) | problems faced by individual students. |
Amongst other things it lacks formal procedures for dealing with:
| (a) | queries about other supposed deficiencies in the examination process; |
| (b) | internal appeals by which students can pursue matters if they judge that a query has not been adequately or fairly resolved. |
5.2 Cambridge also has a number of substantial safeguards built into the examination process to ensure that candidates are treated fairly. Examiners generally do not know the individual candidates, and if they do, the anonymization of the examination process ensures their objectivity as far as is possible.
5.3 At most other universities, in addition to provision for handling queries about clerical and wider procedural and substantive error, there are more extensive procedures for dealing with candidates who consider that they have been hindered by illness or other grave cause in preparing for or taking examinations than Cambridge provides. Boards of Examiners may be empowered to adjust marks or classifications for presumed under-performance in examinations where this is considered to have arisen through illness, accident, or some other misfortune. This is usually done through a central committee which gathers medical and other documentation in support of each case, or by a designated person on the Board of Examiners, or via some other official mechanism. Consideration of the weight and merit of such evidence in individual cases may result in examiners raising the classes or individual marks or the class of borderline candidates, in order to redress the perceived mismatch between ability and actual performance.
5.4 At Cambridge, Examiners are required to assess the work presented to them for the examination and nothing else; extraneous information is excluded from their consideration. As a result, they cannot make hypothetical judgements about how differently a candidate might have performed had circumstances been otherwise. The principle that Examiners should be concerned only with examining academic work is seen at this University as important for the objectivity and even-handedness of the examination process, and is regarded as an important feature of the University's system of quality assurance.
6.1 Responses to the preliminary consultation indicated that many aspects of the present arrangements command widespread support, and we for our part, do not wish to propose any substantial alterations to the general principles of even-handedness and objectivity which they embody. In general we concluded that the problems have more to do with areas where the University lacks formal procedures than with the informal procedures it already has. We have therefore tried to make proposals to extend existing procedures to achieve timely, equitable, and transparent processes for dealing with queries about examination results.
6.2 Consequently, we recommend that students must register all queries with the Deputy Registrary via a Tutor, following discussion with that Tutor. If he/she wishes to proceed after such discussion, it will be the responsibility of the Tutor to forward the details to the Deputy Registrary, even if that Tutor does not support the case. Where it is feasible to do so, students may raise queries anonymously. Written feedback will be supplied in all cases.
6.3 Discrepancies in coverage become apparent very quickly or not at all, and consequently this type of case should be dealt with before class-lists are drawn up and signed. We recommend setting a time limit of 72 hours after the paper has been taken for students to come forward with queries of this sort.
6.4 We further recommend that from the start, a written record of all queries referred by the Deputy Registrary to the Chairmen of Examiners be kept, and feedback given to the student via the Tutor/Senior Tutor. In the event of any further query or complaint, a clear indication of the procedure followed in each case should be available.
6.5 In the case of applications for allowances towards examinations referred by the Deputy Registrary to the Applications Committee, a formal, written record is already kept and where necessary, feedback given to the student via the Tutor/Senior Tutor. As a strengthening of current procedure, we also recommend the formalization of the convention that there are always two medically qualified persons on the Applications Committee.
7.1 The Applications Committee acts on behalf of the Council; it considers the documentary/medical evidence provided by candidates applying for allowances towards examinations. It is not a substitute (or 'higher') Board of Examiners, and does not have the power to change marks, to award a class to a candidate, or to overrule the relevant examining body. The Secretary of the Committee is the Deputy Registrary.
7.2 We believe that the Applications Committee performs valuable functions in dealing with queries of the type described in 4.2(c) above, arising out of individual circumstances. However, it is not appropriately constituted to consider other sorts of queries about examination results (for example about serious procedural failure or alleged bias or substantive misconduct). It is certainly not adequately constituted to act as an appeals body.
7.3 Nonetheless, there is a case for permitting the Applications Committee, under certain circumstances, to award a class in consultation with the Examiners which does justice to the candidate's abilities and/or the case the candidate has presented. For example, it may occasionally happen that a candidate performs at a high level in the greater part of an examination, and is then suddenly struck down by some illness or other misfortune; as a result, the candidate either misses a small section of the examination, or takes that section under severe handicap. These two possibilities are considered below:
(i) If the candidate misses a small section of the examination for good cause; the Tutor will submit an 'Examination Warning' whereupon the Applications Committee will authorize the Examiners to declare the candidate to have deserved honours in accordance with Regulation 2(b)(i) for allowances provided that the candidate has performed with credit in a substantial part of the examination (as would be the case in the example above).
We suggest that the Applications Committee, after consultation with the relevant Chairman of Examiners, should be empowered to substitute the award of an actual class for the designation by the Examiners that the candidate has deserved honours. This would happen only where the Applications Committee were satisfied with the bona fides of the case and where it was apparent to the Chairman of Examiners that an actual class could be properly awarded to reflect the candidate's performance in the greater part of the examination.
(ii) If the candidate attends the whole of the examination and performs well in the greater part, but takes a small part of the examination under severe handicap and as a result performs badly in that section; the candidate is likely to be awarded a class based on the aggregate performance which, in such circumstances, will misrepresent his/her ability. Under the present arrangements, the only action which can be taken is for the Tutor to apply to the Applications Committee under Regulation 3(d) for allowances to remove the candidate's name from the class concerned and to declare him/her to have deserved honours.
We suggest that the Applications Committee, after consultation with the Chairman of Examiners, should be empowered to remove the candidate's name from the class concerned and place him/her in a higher class as an alternative to declaring him/her to have deserved honours. This would happen only where the Applications Committee were satisfied that the candidate's performance in a small part of the examination was significantly below par for good reason, and where it was apparent to the Chairman of Examiners that his/her class could be properly raised in such circumstances to reflect his/her performance in the greater part of the examination.
7.4 If the changes described in 7.3(i) and (ii) took place, it would remain the case that no candidate would be placed in a class by the Applications Committee unless he/she had presented to the Examiners work of the quality appropriate to that class, covering the greater part of the examination, and unless they were satisfied that there was good cause for absence or lower performance in a relatively small part of the examination. Cases in which a higher class could be awarded by this procedure are rare, but they do occasionally arise, and we believe that they must be considered.
7.5 We discussed at some length whether the declaration that a candidate 'deserved honours' is an adequate response to underperformance reflecting illness or other personal emergency. Any change in this area would require considerable discussion and agreement across the University and Colleges, and we recognize that it is the view of the majority of respondents to the consultation that the use of the declaration to have 'deserved honours' is satisfactory. However, we also acknowledge that the term is largely unknown outside Cambridge, and that there is a significant minority within the University and Colleges who regard the use of this designation as unfair and even damaging in some cases. Although the declaration may be so perceived, we do not see any way of retaining the objectivity of academic judgement which it implies, while permitting a non-academic body to class candidates, except in the narrow circumstances described in 7.3 above. The present Group is not constituted to deal with this large issue, but they suggest that the central bodies of the University may wish to return to it at some future date.
8.1 Neither the Nolan nor the Dearing recommendations suggested that reviews of undergraduate examinations results should replace academic with non-academic judgement. The CVCP response to Nolan1 contains the following statement:
We wish to emphasise that in none of [the options for independent review], do we anticipate that it would be open to the independent person or body to substitute his, her or its judgement on academic matters for that of the deciding authority of the University. If it is concluded that the internal authority has erred procedurally or has contravened any of the basic principles of natural justice or administrative law which would lead a court or Visitor to intervene, the matter must then be sent back for re-consideration and determination, possibly by a different group of individuals. The preservation and integrity of academic standards makes it essential that academic judgement or decisions should never be reached by persons not properly qualified in that respect. This has long been recognised by Visitors, who look at procedures and so forth, but never make academic judgements. This principle should be preserved at all costs.
This, it should be noted, does not rule out the questioning of academic judgement; it is merely concerned that academic judgement is exercised only by those qualified to do so.
8.2 The integrity and the quality of academic judgement is maintained through various means embedded within the Cambridge examinations process. These include for example, the marking of all scripts on an equitable basis, devoid of circumstantial detail, the anonymization of candidates, external examining, and double-marking. We note that the last of these is not employed systematically across Faculties and Departments, that it is a tool employed rather more in arts subjects than sciences, and that it is often used to settle borderline cases. Although marking is not an exact science, double-marking provides a means of independent verification of marks, particularly if both marks are recorded in mark books for candidates to see. We believe that it should be the responsibility of the Boards of Examiners to record evidence that each candidate's marks have been subject to adequate checks (whether by universal double-marking, spot checks, the arbitration of the External Examiner, or by other methods) and can be justified if queried. In the case of borderline candidates, we believe that such procedures are particularly important.
8.3 Mere dissatisfaction with results and consequent reluctance to accept the academic judgement of the Examiners should not of itself constitute prima facie grounds for review. However, the possibility of lapses of judgement or of procedure which can affect the candidate's class, must not be ruled out.
8.4 There is a case for establishing an Examinations Review Committee which should be able to receive any complaint about the conduct and results of examinations which is not satisfied by the Deputy Registrary referring a query to the Board of Examiners. It would therefore have to handle serious, non-clerical procedural error by Boards of Examiners (e.g. the absence of relevant Examiners), or substantive error (incompetent marking, bias, or prejudice).
8.5 We therefore propose that there should be an Examinations Review Committee, distinct from the Applications Committee and independent of the Council, to deal specifically with complaints about examinations and examination results as outlined above. The Examinations Review Committee would be inquisitorial in nature and should, in considering cases and making judgements or recommendations for action, have access to such academic or medical evidence in the course of their investigations as can be provided by the student(s), the relevant Tutor(s), and the Chairman of the relevant Board of Examiners.
8.6 An Examinations Review Committee should be constituted of five members, of whom three would be a quorum, and would comprise:
The Secretary would be a senior officer of the central administration, and would not be the Deputy Registrary. All members of the Examinations Review Committee must be independent of the particular cases they investigate. For this reason, each member must have a deputy who will step in when the named member is in any way connected with the case.
8.7 However, it would not be appropriate for an Examinations Review Committee to receive complaints about quality of supervision or other pre-examination events. Such complaints would be appropriately handled within Colleges and Faculties, and by the procedures currently under consideration by the Committee on the Second Nolan Report.
9.1 The task of the Examinations Review Committee will be to conduct inquiries into complaints and requests for review of examination results, establishing facts, and making and mediating judgements upon the basis of evidence presented.
9.2 The remedy in cases where the Examinations Review Committee upholds a query or a complaint about an examination, or agrees that a result should be reviewed, is referral of the case back to the Board of Examiners as the only competent authority to judge academic performance. They should also be empowered to permit a candidate to retake an examination in the following year, should that be more appropriate. We note that speed will not always be possible in this process, particularly if a case goes through several stages; however, we suggest that Boards of Examiners, as their final task should nominate an Executive Committee from their number, who would be available during the following period to deal with any queries which may arise. We believe that a member of the Examinations Review Committee should be present at this second meeting of Examiners to ensure and be seen to ensure that the matter is resolved fairly.
9.3 In addition, the Examinations Review Committee will keep formal records of all proceedings and business which may be called upon in the event of an appeal against their decision. They should be able to provide a clear audit trail of the development of each individual case.
9.4 Procedures for handling the various categories of queries are outlined in Appendix II.
10.1 In common with Oxford, the University does not have a Visitor who could act as the final internal arbiter of disputes and complaints, after the usual mechanisms have been exhausted. Consequently, if a candidate were dissatisfied after recourse to the Examinations Review Committee, he or she would not have any higher authority to appeal to save the courts. This is an expensive and time-consuming process for both parties, and we believe that it is important for the University to provide an internal appeals procedure to which the decisions of the Examinations Review Committee could be referred.
10.2 An internal appeal body would have to be similar in role and function to a Visitor, and would have to meet the requirements of Dearing for independence and externality. The University already has the office of Commissary which could take on this function, and we believe that it would be sensible to utilize this office for this purpose. We understand that the Council's Committee on the Second Nolan Report is also thinking along these lines, and hope that that Committee will take into account this proposed function during their consideration of the role of the Commissary.
10.3 Since the Applications Committee is a sub-committee of the Council, any dissatisfaction with the outcome of its decisions would need to be addressed to its parent body, the University Council.
11.1 Given the formalization of procedures, delimitation of the grounds for review, and implementation of all preventative measures as described in Appen-dix III, we believe that complaints and queries about examinations and requests for review can be dealt with without recourse to judicial review, which must be the last recourse for the student. The establishment of formal means for dealing with queries, complaints, reviews, and appeals will serve to protect both the University and students; external bodies will not concern themselves with the academic assessment, but only with the adequacy and correct implementation of the University's own procedures.
12.1 When procedures have been agreed by the University, they will be drawn to the attention of students in the first instance by the forthcoming Student Charter, and in the Students' Handbook.
Dearing specified that such arrangements must be transparent; with this in mind, we recommend that in addition to the above, the procedures and arrangements, with contact details where appropriate, should be posted on the University's website and be included in the relevant Faculty and College handbooks.
13.1 We note that the Quality Assurance Agency are planning to publish a draft Code of Practice in relation to student complaints and appeals procedures, during 1999-2000; that document should be considered in conjunction with the present report. From the pre-liminary indications the Agency has given, we are confident that these proposals will comply with their requirements.
1 Independent Review of Student Appeals and Complaints; CVCP, April 1998.
Pages 817-820 of the paper issue of this Reporter are reproduced online in the form of an Adobe Acrobat PDF file. Notes on viewing PDF files are provided.
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
Cambridge University Reporter, 14 June 2000
Copyright © 2000 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.