Exam appeals at Cambridge University

Below is a report (CREAC) written by Daniel Blaney, CUSU Academic Affairs Officer 1999-2000, when CUSU was campaigning on the lack of an exam appeals system.

Appeals in Cambridge
Appendices - Individual Student Testimonies and Case Studies

1. Context

1.1 The Context for CUSU's current focus on the exam appeals system at Cambridge is the University's interest in it. The University set up a Working Group to review the current system and suggest improvements to it. CUSU set up a parallel group, in order to better participate in the debate.

1.2 The Working Group has subsequently published its findings as the "Report of the Joint Working Group on the Review of Examination Results for Students other than Graduate Students" (hereafter "the Working Group Report").

1.3 The principal reason for the University's interest in this topic is the second Nolan Report on Standards in Public Life, a report dealing with a very wide variety of public institutions. Nolan argued that students in Higher Education should have recourse to appeal to some form of independent body (other than the Courts).

1.4 Following on from this, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals published a report arguing than all universities should utilise one of a series of models in the structure of their appeals system.

1.5 The University's current structure does not conform to any of these models. The vast majority of British Universities do. Oxford does.

1.6 According to a 1998 survey of Academic Appeals compiled by the National Union of Students, three quarters of Higher Education Institutions grant a right to appeal. Half grant a right to appeal on the basis of suspected bias and prejudice. In addition, not all institutions explain their appeals system in their student handbook. Only slightly more than one quarter give details of their appeals procedure along with exam results.

1.7 Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that In determination of his civil rights everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

2. Weaknesses of the Current System

2.1 The current system is wholly informal. There are no clear guidelines to describe what should happen. As a result of this there is variation across colleges in how complaints are dealt with. There is ignorance among students and members of staff regarding what should happen in the event of a problem. There is a general lack of transparency and coherence.

2.2 There is no independent body to which students could appeal, in the event of there being dissatisfaction over how a complaint has been handled. Because of the informal procedure, it is currently "impossible" for any complaint to be handled imperfectly.

2.3 The current spread of discretionary awards is inadequate to deal with the full array of possible problems. Currently, a genuine problem can only be "solved" in one of two ways. She can be "allowed" an exam, which is the equivalent of awarding an Ordinary. Otherwise, the student can be declared "Deemed to have Deserved Honours". DDH is a paradigm case of the limitations of informality. DDH gives no indication of the candidate's academic ability, as "deserving honours" can only imply than a candidate "deserved something between a First and a Third". A student is reliant on references as the only indication of her ability. This can raise serious problems regarding careers and postgraduate study. For example, a candidate would have problems when applying for positions that required a 2:1.

2.4 There is no provision to appeal on the basis of perceived academic and/or procedural shortcomings, no matter how serious.

3. Strengths of the Working Group Report

3.1.

The Working Group's recommendations meet the fundamental criterion of formality. If Cambridge University adopted this procedure, it would meet the minimum requirements set out by the CVCP's response to the second Nolan Report.
Moreover, the fact of formality could go some considerable way toward dealing with the lack of clarity in the current system. Uncertainty has itself been a source of worry for vulnerable students; a formalised procedure should help relieve this. The diagrams at the rear of the Working Group Report do indeed clearly express how queries will be dealt with.
We agree wholeheartedly with the Working Group when it recommends that these procedures should be advertised in the Student Charter and in the Students' Handbook.

3.2.

Under the proposed system, students would be able to complain if they considered that an appeal had been handled wrongly. This satisfies a central requirement of second Nolan Report. Moreover, it is an extremely valuable benefit in itself. Given that the University does not have an independent Visitor, the creation of an organ of internal view is extremely pressing.
In the future, students will have an inexpensive way of resolving problems. We agree with the Working Group that students should not have resort to the courts in order to resolve complaints.
We further agree that the office of the Commissary could and should take on the function of an internal appeal body, able to deal with complaints about the Examinations Review Committee (see below)

3.3.

The Working Group Report proposes the creation of an Examinations Review Committee (hereafter "ERC"). This body would deal with cases of serious non-clerical procedural errors (e.g. absence of relevant examiners) and substantive error (e.g. incompetent marking, bias or prejudice). In other words, the ERC is charged with dealing with alleged mistakes on the part of the University. If the University makes an error - such as substantive marking error, or a candidate being given an exam in inappropriate circumstance - the ERC would be expected to remedy the situation.
This must not be confused with dealing with cases where a student has experienced grave personal misfortune (such as serious illness, or the death of a close family member). The entirely separate Applications Committee (see below) handles these cases.
We congratulate the Working Group for arming the ERC with an adequate array of powers with which to resolve problems. If a student is found to have suffered an injustice, then two alterations can be made. The ERC can empower the Board of Examiners to remark the candidate, and issue a new class-list accordingly. For example, if a candidate has suffered examiner bias, the candidate's script can be re-marked by other examiners. This is an extremely valuable improvement to the current system. Secondly, the ERC is empowered to allow candidates to retake an examination the following year. The possibility of a candidate retaking an exam when the ERC was satisfied that a complaint justified is an extremely important improvement to the current system. The University will have a body capable of examining complaints, and empowered to issue remedial action when a complaint is upheld.

3.4.

The Applications Committee is the body responsible for dealing with situations when candidates have suffered serious personal misfortune, such as illness of the death of a family member.
The Working Group did not propose many changes to the work of the Applications Committee. All that is suggested is that the Applications Committee should be given additional powers to deal with candidates who suffer misfortune toward the end of an exam. In this situation, the Applications Committee (in consultation with the relevant Board of Examiners) would be empowered to grant the candidate a class on the basis of the part of the exam that the candidate had completed before the incident took place. Consider this example: A candidate performs well in an exam, but suffers a serious illness after completing, say, eighty per cent of it. The candidate's class would not truly represent her true ability. Therefore, the Applications Committee would be empowered to issue a class on the basis of the first eighty per cent.
Such incidents are extremely rare, but they should be catered for. The Working Group is certainly right to recommend this change.
3.5 We welcome the fact that the Working Group shows a clear preference for "double marking " of scripts. We welcome also the Working Groups' recognition that double marking is unevenly practised across faculties. The Working Group is right to point out that wider use of double marking would result in fewer appeals than would otherwise be the case.

4.Results and Recommendations

4.1.

The Working Group has decided that it is not competent to deal with the issue of the adequacy of the award "Deemed to have Deserved Honours". However, a body that is not competent to present a settled conclusion, is still competent to present a list of possible alternatives.
It is the firm opinion of CUSU that declaring a candidate Deemed to have Deserved Honours does not represent an adequate remedy in a great many of cases. As mentioned above, a candidate so declared does not possess a degree, which can present many serious problems in later years. Moreover, DDH gives no indication of a candidate's academic ability. Finding a solution to the problems presented by the limitations of DDH should form a central focus in the reform of the exam appeals system.
It is unlikely that there will be another opportunity to reform the Cambridge exam appeals system for some considerable time. It would be a terrible lost opportunity if the appeals system was reformed with no reform to DDH.

4.2.

The alterations to the powers of the Applications Committee are not extensive enough to remedy the full panoply of cases with which it has to deal. Currently the Committee has the power to "allow" an exam or to declare "DDH". If the Working Group's recommendations are put into practice, the only additional power will concern those candidates who suffer serious misfortune towards the end of their last exam.
We have particular trouble with the fact that the Applications Committee has powers that are so conspicuously inferior to the powers of the proposed Examinations Review Committee. A candidate that suffered bias in her examinations will be permitted to re-sit her final year. A candidate that suffered a major illness or the death of a parent will not.
We believe that this is fundamentally unfair. If a candidate suffers a serious personal problem during examinations, this problem should be addressed. From the point of view of the individual student, an injustice caused by illness or bereavement is no less serious than an injustice caused by procedural error. It is illogical to improve facilities for dealing with the one, but not the other.
At the very least, candidates who have suffered serious personal misfortune should be allowed to retake the following year.
In some European countries (such as Portugal), every candidate has a general right to retake all exams. CUSU does not believe that this right is suitable for Cambridge. It would be preferable if an individual College could be allowed to resubmit a candidate the following year. It is worth pointing out that Colleges do currently have the theoretical power to submit a candidate to sit the Part II of a different Tripos. We are not aware of any such examples of this. However, Appendix One E shows the example of a candidate who had been offered a place on the Management Studies Tripos, after completing the Economic Tripos. The fact that he went on to do a different Part II, solved the problem for this particular candidate. Had he not gone to do Management, this candidate would have been left without a degree.
It might be preferable, if the Applications Committee could empower the Board of Examiners to issue a class on the basis of previous examinations or supervision work. There is no need to see this as blurring the divide between University and College, as an analogous practice is not seen as blurring the divide between school and A-level examining board.
We are aware, however, that the University is deeply unwilling to issue classes on the basis of anything other than exam scripts. This need not prevent the Applications Committee, in consultation with the Board of Examiners, to declare a candidate Deemed to have Deserved a particular class. This would not be a degree, but it would be a good indication of the candidate's academic ability.
Even if such options are rejected, we can see no reasonable objection to empowering the Applications Committee to allow candidates to re-sit exams, if it considered that the candidate had suffered serious personal misfortune.
The core of our argument is that the Applications Committee do not possess a sufficient range of remedial instruments with which to deal with the great variety of problems that confront it. All our outlined possibilities (and especially the facility of retakes) are described as possible ways to increase the variety of powers available to the Applications Committee.

4.3 The great risk with not changing the system is that candidates will not be confident about the means of solving illness-related problems, and will attempt to "soldier on" without telling anyone. A crucial flaw in the proposed system is as follows. If a candidate becomes ill before her exams start, she can degrade, which is fine. If she falls ill after completing the greater part of her final exam, the Application Committee will be able to award an accurate class if it so chooses. However, if a candidate falls ill in the middle of her exams, DDH is the best she can hope for.

4.4 We welcome the facility whereby the Applications Committee can grant a class on the basis of a greater part of an exam, if a candidate fell victim to misfortune towards the end of the paper However, we do feel that the phrase "the greater part" is ambiguous. Does this mean nearer ninety per cent or just over fifty per cent? We accept that discretion sometimes works to the advantage of the student, but we would appreciate more clarification on this matter. Appendix One B shows a case of a candidate adversely affected by illness in exams. If this had affected her towards the end of exam, perhaps the changes to the Applications Committee's work could have helped her. Students do need clarity over how much of an exam would qualify as "the greater part".

4.5.

It is admirable that the Working Group is willing to recommend that the "expert" member of the Examinations Review Committee need not be a member of the University. However, we believe that would be better if every Examinations Review Committee contained an outside member. This could be the "expert" member; it could also be the legally qualified member. We believe that the internal review procedure must have an independent element.
We note and welcome the Working Group's stress that the internal appeals body - probably the office of the Commissary - should certainly meet the requirements for independence and externality.

4.6.

The Working Group recommends that a candidate case can only be reported within 72 hours, through his/her Tutor. We have certain misgivings over such a short time-scale in any case (especially as the Report gives no indication of how 72 hours should be interpreted if an incident happened on a Friday). We recognise the usual benefits of using the Tutorial system. However, Tutors can sometimes be hard to get hold of. Appendix One C is an example of a problem where lack of contact caused major problems for a student. It should not be assumed that all Tutors are equally well-informed, or equally accessible. Moreover, the Working Group Report stresses that a Tutor must follow up a query whether he/she agrees with it or not. Given this lack of discretion, it is very strange that a student must make contact with a Tutor within such a short time-scale.
72 hours is too short time to be a strict maximum. If there must be a time limit, it should not be less than a week. Furthermore, although candidates should be encouraged to contact their Tutor, they should be allowed to initiate queries themselves.

4.7 The Report stresses that "mere dissatisfaction" is no grounds for complaint. On the surface, this appears to be a sensible statement. However, the Report then goes on to say that "incompetent marking" forms grounds for review. We cannot see how, from the student's point of view, these two phrases can be seen as different from each other. Candidates at Cambridge are never allowed to see their exam scripts, therefore any allegation of incompetent marking can only be consequence of "mere" dissatisfaction with the mark given.

4.8.

Cambridge students should be allowed to see their own exam scripts. Indeed, if a candidate were able to see his own script, he could show it to his Director of Studies. The DoS would then be able to offer concrete advice on whether an appeal would be worth it. This would have the effect of minimising the number of appeals that have very little chance of success.
Candidates for Preliminary Examinations should be able to see their exam scripts as a matter of course.

4.9.

The Working Group Report sets great stock by the fact that it has made a conscious effort to consult with a great variety of people in the University. Indeed, the Report includes an Appendix giving evidence of this. This shows evidence of admirable consultation with Departments and Faculties, Chairs of Examiners, College Tutors and the University Counselling Service. CUSU considers it regrettable that no analogous effort was put into consulting the student population on these matters.
CUSU has information about particular examples (such as Appendix One A) which show how much individual students have been adversely affected by the limitations of and lack of clarity about the current system.
Moreover, involving CUSU more in the actual practice of the appeals system would greatly increase students' confidence that they will be treated considerately. Therefore, we recommend that the CUSU Academic Affairs Officer be made a member of the relevant committee, certainly the Examinations Review Committee.

4.10 CUSU remains unconvinced by the Working Group Report's assertion that there is no need to change the current practices for catering for students with disabilities. For reasons of space however, it would not be possible to present a series of recommendations in the present report. This forms the focus of the separate CUSU inquiry of the CUSU Students With Disabilities campaign.

5. Conclusions

5.1 The old system for examination appeals and complaints is in serious need of reform.

5.2 CUSU welcomes the University's willingness to consider changes to the system

5.3 A formalised system is a virtue in itself, in addition to being advised by external bodies.

5.4 An independent element is likewise a virtue in itself.

5.5 Any changes need to be widely publicised.

5.6 The new procedures need to be easily accessible, with clear details of what to do and when.

5.7 CUSU welcomes many of the Working Group's recommendations, especially the creation of a powerful Examinations Review Committee.

5.8 CUSU believes that the Working Group's recommendations do not go far enough. In particular, the discretionary powers of the Applications Committee need to be extended. It does not currently posses a sufficient range of remedial instruments; nor will it, if the Working Group's proposals are accepted without amendment.

5.9 It strikes us as odd that the Working Group does not feel able to offer any alternatives to the declaration "Deemed to have Deserved Honours". We feel that the shortcomings of DDH are so apparent and so dramatic that the exam appeals system cannot be considered "reformed" until an alternative solution has been found.

Appendices: Individual Student Testimonies and Case Studies

(a) Mark Lowrie Veterinary Science Clare College

I am writing to give my account of what happened to me during my MVST 1A veterinary anatomy exam. This was my first written exam that I sat in Cambridge and it was necessary for me to gain a 2.2 or higher in order to pass the 2nd vet MB exam (a necessary qualification for a vet to gain in order to progress to the clinical years). The exam procedure has always been for the invigilator to make sure everyone is sat ready for the exam, to allow a few minutes before the start of the exam for the candidates to read through the paper and to read out the rubric. On this occasion, none of these things happened and ludicrously the exam was started even before two of the candidates had been seated (due to an administration error).

The paper had been set out so that it contained two different papers; the anatomy paper for medics and the veterinary anatomy paper. Myself and a number of other vets in the exam hall who haD also had no time to read the rubric were unaware of this and therefore started to answer the questions on the first page (the medics' paper, i.e. the wrong paper). After ten minutes or so the other vets realised their error and began the correct paper. However, the questions on both papers were very similar and the stress of the whole situation meant I remained unaware that I was doing the wrong paper until the very end of the exam. As soon as I realised my mistake I notified an invigilator who notified the examiner.

Unfortunately, the lay-out of the exam meant a second paper was to be sat by us immediately after, and therefore I was made to write two essays in the knowledge that my first exam would be a definite 'fail'. After 30 minutes of the second exam, the examiner came in to tell me that all was ok and that I would be allowed to sit the first exam once I had finished the essays. The exam finished and I was escorted back to Clare college by the examiner. On arrival at the college the examiner spoke to the secretary and explained the situation but she told us that she had spoken to Dr Simon Franklin, the senior tutor at Clare college, who said that 'it had been decided that candidate 8723B could not sit the exam due to rubric infringement'. The examiner and several other important examiners (including the MVST 1A examiner) argued but were unable to do anything because the Old school rules state that what I had done was classed as rubric infringement and therefore nothing could be done.

As this was my first exam, I was forced into the situation of sitting the rest of my first year exams in the knowledge that I had failed veterinary anatomy. This in my opinion severely ruined my chances in the MVST 1A Tripos and as a result I ended the year with a third (not the 2:2 that I needed).

Evidence to support this opinion came when I passed all the re-sits first time in July of the same year. Due to no complaints procedure being in place I felt furious and these feelings were made stronger by the fact that the examiner and my director of studies (who has an important position in the MVST 1A examinations) completely disagreed with what went on. I am now left with only thoughts of what could have been and the only comfort I can take from my mistake is that future years will be given the anatomy papers separately.

(b) Sarah Cobb Girton SPS

I have been suffering from chronic fatigue or ME in one form or another since 1997, and although it is getting better slowly it does still cause some problems when I get stressed. My Tutor and Dos are well aware of my condition. Last year for my part 1 Tripos in Sps I decided not to put a warning letter in to the examiners as I was feeling well at the start of the Easter term , And did not feel my ME would be a problem. However, about a week before the exams I collapsed due to stress and felt unable to take the exams in the exam hall as I was so tired. I went to see my tutor who told me to see the college nurse who was very nice and made an appointment for me to see my doctor the next day. My doctor here in Cambridge was very unsympathetic and wrote a note to the examiners simply stating that I had bouts of tiredness. This was completely unrepresentative of my past medical records, but not untypical of medical responses to an illness unacknowledged by some elements of the medical establishment. I then proceded to take my four papers in college which was much better, but still meant that I had problems , as I found it hard to concentrate in the first two exams in which I felt quite ill compared to the other two papers I took the next week when I felt much better. When I received my marks back I found a huge discrepancy between the two sets of marks. The exams I took in the first week were 2.2 or borderline 2.1 standard, whilst by contrast the other set of marks from the two papers I sat the next week feeling much better were rated at good 2.1 and first. The difference of 16 marks between two of the papers clearly shows how the effects of my illness affected my grades to the detriment. I feel that had this been my finals I would have received a mark that was therefore unrepresentative of my abilities , and unfair, and would have asked at the time to try and take 50 percent of the exams, just two of the papers probably in the second week when I felt better. I was lucky to some extent that I knew that I could get ill so had chance to find out what the procedures were. However, I do feel that the provision of extra time or taking the exams in college is inadequate to say the least, because as my case shows I still received an overall lower mark ,unreflective of my true ability through no fault of my own. The examiners should also have been more aware of my past medical history of my disorder so that it could not have been passed off as tiredness, which is a gross misrepresentation. This could have been taken more into account. I also felt confused as the procedures were really not made clear, and I was solely dependent on the advice of my tutor and his knowledge of complaints.

I also feel this a weakness of the current system.

(c) Frustrated by need for reliance on tutor

Two weeks before the exams at the end of the second year my grandfather, who I was very close to, died. I had to go to Penzance for the funeral and arrived two days before my exams started.

I had sent my dizzy tutor an e-mail before I left to tell her what had happened. I also contacted my DoS.

When I came back from the funeral I found my DoS who told me that it was a tutorial affair and that I would have to get hold of my tutor. I sent her numerous letters and e-mails and she didn't reply until half way through my exams, when she sent me a small note which said 'You *must* tell me before your exams start'.

I didn't know what to do. After the exams my DoS told me that sending the letter in would have made no difference as the rule about 'getting >=2.2 in the second year in Physics and overall or you can't do the 4th year' is set in stone.

As it turned out I passed by <3% as my Maths grade dropped from a 2.1 in the first year to a third.

Caught out by need to send a warning letter:

I was told that my tutor had to send the warning letter on my behalf or it would be ignored, not that it would have made any difference anyhow...

Unable to have explained a completely unexpected mark:

Yes, I got 29% in Quantum last year and I have no idea why. I compared answers with the friend that I revised Quantum with and I thought I had done slightly worse maybe around 50%, but not 29%!

Why can't we get our scripts back for the exams which don't count for anything? (eg. the 1st year)

(d)

In my first year (96/97), I got Glandular Fever three days before my exams started, so consquently missed all of them. I think that I was granted an 'allowance' to the second year as I wasn't turned away when I came back in October 97, but I never had any official letter or contact confirming this. I remember being informed that College were going to sort it out, but I can only assume that it was 'sorted' as I heard nothing about the outcome.

In my second year (97/98), I did badly (but not for lack of trying). I got a third at the end of it and was referred to the 'Thirds Committee'. The reason for my bad performance that was decided upon was that I was still suffering the after effects of Glandular Fever (which are known to last up to three years). I believe that it was a combination of this with bad subject choices made on my part, as I had no exam results on which to base them. My supervisors had predicted me 2.1's so College was obviously concerned....

Between my second and third year I changed tripos. I did a lot better that year (98/99), but still under-performed in my finals. College again asked about this, but I wasn't able to give a satisfactory answer. I unofficially put it down to 'having an off-week' which was unofficially accepted. Looking back on it now, I think that I was basically too inexperienced with Cambridge exams to have been able to get the mark I was predicted with.