- + Thebabeofbengal edited the debate Are women superior to men?
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Tracy Barret voted on the debate Prostitution should be legalised to protect sex workers from HIV/AIDS
- + Plally7 edited the debate Will mankind make it to the next century?
- + Arnavnarian joined Debatewise
- + Ll Blynch edited the debate Are London Underground staff justified in their strike action?
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Crissieboy joined Debatewise
- + Explonential joined Central London Debating Society
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Golmindalin joined Debatewise
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
UNIVERSITY EXAM MARKING IS FLAWED, AND NOT TRANSPARENT.
You cannot question your mark on an exam on 'academic grounds'. You can only make an appeal against a judgement if there was an 'extenuating circumstance' that affected your performance, or a possible 'administrative error'. The 'administrative error' route is flawed as the university makes no physical mark on the exam paper in order to prove that the mark in a master spreadsheet is in fact correctly assigned to you. Outcome - even in an exam where glaring administrative errors were made to the effect that some attending students were marked as 'absent', the university insists there is no error in your case. The external body "Office of the Independent Adjudicator" - claims the university has acted within its rules and regulations (even though those mean that it cannot prove the paper is yours) and that there is no basis for your appeal. The whole process only takes approximately ten months to resolve.
University exam marking is flawed, and not transparent.
Yes, because... There is no feedback on examined work.
Feedback is only given on (optional) coursework that does not contribute to final mark.
Once the exams are taken, feedback would not be useful, as the grades have been decided and you cannot do anything or change anything to alter your grades.
Vote on this point: There is no feedback on examined work.
See history of changes to this point
University exam marking is flawed, and not transparent.
Yes, because... You cannot question an academic judgement, only administrative error.
Grounds of appeal are, 'extenuating circumstance' (eg. death in family) at the time the exam was taken, or possible 'administrative error'.
See history of changes to this point
University exam marking is flawed, and not transparent.
Yes, because... There is no physical evidence to verify correct allocation of mark to student
No mark is made on the manuscript, only in a spreadsheet. If you question the allocated mark on 'administrative error' grounds - it cannot be verified whether the is indeed yours as there is nothing on the original peice of work.
See history of changes to this point
University exam marking is flawed, and not transparent.
No, because... Exam mark allocations can be verified by inspection of the master spreadsheet.
No they cannot. Entry into a spreadsheet is prone to error, and even then does not link exam mark to manuscript (with no mark on it).
University exam marking is flawed, and not transparent.
No, because... The exam papers are marked by both an internal and an external marker.
Agreed, but these have to be manually entered into a spreadsheet at a later date and this is open to human error. Cannot be checked at a later date as there is nothing written onto the manuscript.
University exam marking is flawed, and not transparent.
No, because... Feedback is given on coursework, not examined work.
I fail to see the educational benefit to be gained from no comment on your final work. Best of all, this allows for no accountability or traceability on the part of the university who does not have to justify why you have been allocated the mark.
Vote on this debate: University exam marking is flawed, and not transparent.
Modified:
27 Nov 2008
Point 1. There is no feedback on examined work.
Feedback is only given on (optional) coursework that does not contribute to final mark.
Once the exams are taken, feedback would not be useful, as the grades have been decided and you cannot do anything or change anything to alter your grades.
Point 2. You cannot question an academic judgement, only administrative error.
Grounds of appeal are, 'extenuating circumstance' (eg. death in family) at the time the exam was taken, or possible 'administrative error'.
Point 3. There is no physical evidence to verify correct allocation of mark to student
No mark is made on the manuscript, only in a spreadsheet. If you question the allocated mark on 'administrative error' grounds - it cannot be verified whether the is indeed yours as there is nothing on the original peice of work.
Point 1. Exam mark allocations can be verified by inspection of the master spreadsheet.
No they cannot. Entry into a spreadsheet is prone to error, and even then does not link exam mark to manuscript (with no mark on it).
Point 2. The exam papers are marked by both an internal and an external marker.
Agreed, but these have to be manually entered into a spreadsheet at a later date and this is open to human error. Cannot be checked at a later date as there is nothing written onto the manuscript.
Point 3. Feedback is given on coursework, not examined work.
I fail to see the educational benefit to be gained from no comment on your final work. Best of all, this allows for no accountability or traceability on the part of the university who does not have to justify why you have been allocated the mark.