HISTORY OF ART WRITTEN STATEMENT ON ASSESSMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. (for 2013/14 cohort and later)

HISTORY OF ART WRITTEN STATEMENT ON ASSESSMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (for 2013/14 cohort and later) BA Single Subject History of Art; English/ History of Art; History/ History of Art The written explanation of assessment policies and procedures which follows has been prepared with the aim of informing students about these matters as clearly and effectively as possible. Students should read this document alongside the Department s Undergraduate Handbook (http://www.york.ac.uk/history-ofart/current/undergraduate/handbooks/) and the University s Guide to Assessment (http://www.york.ac.uk/about/departments/support-and-admin/registryservices/guide/). Students should feel free to consult their Supervisor or the Chair of the Board of Studies if they have any queries. CONTENTS 1. Overview of Types of Assessment 2. Marking Procedures 3. Mitigating Circumstances 4. Penalties 5. Deadlines and Submissions 6. Progression 7. Appeals

1. OVERVIEW OF THE TYPES OF ASSESSMENT History of Art modules are assessed by a variety of methods which we have carefully designed to enable students to show their ability in different forms of writing and analysis, and to avoid overemphasis on any one method of examination. At present, these methods include: A. Assessed Essay This is an essay written during term time in response to a set question, with access to library resources and notes. This essay will include footnotes, a bibliography, and usually illustrations. B. Image Exam (2 hours) This is a closed exam where questions are accompanied by identified images which students are expected to address in their answers. C. Seminar Performance This is the assessment of students performance within the seminar setting detailed criteria for this assessment can be found below. D. 2 Hour Closed Exam At stage two, intermediate seminar modules are assessed by way of a closed exam with eight questions from which students answer two. This exam may include an image question. E. Dissertation Portfolio (4,000 words) This is a detailed plan for future research on the dissertation or bridge essay. It includes an outline of the project, a bibliography, a critical review of the literature, a plan for completion, and a research outline, it includes accompanying illustrations. F. Group Project For Museology students are assessed on a group presentation worked on throughout the module. The mark for the group project is made up of two elements, one based on the group presentation (50%) and one for your individual reflection (50%), to recognise both the team effort and individual achievement. G. 48 hour Open Exam (two 1, 500-2,000-word essays) Stage three special subject modules are assessed by way of two essays, which are written across a period of 48 hours in response to questions chosen from a list that is posted on the VLE. H. Dissertation / Bridge Essay (7,000-8,000 single subject and English combined, 10,000 History/History of Art) This is an independently researched piece of work written on a topic chosen by the student. Preparation for this task is done at stage two within the dissertation training module. I. Language Assessments (2 hour written exam; 30 minute listening exam; 30 minute oral exam) These assessments are carried out by Languages For All; see their statement on assessment.

2. MARKING PROCEDURES Anonymity: All assessed work is anonymous during the marking process. Individuals are identified only by their University examination number, which is not available to markers (although the Examinations Officer and/ or the Chair of the Board of Studies may have to break the code in certain circumstances). Markers: All written work submitted for examination is read independently by one or two examiners. Each of them assigns the work a mark. Any significant variation between these marks may be resolved by a third internal marker. At stage one the work is first marked and then statistically moderated across the cohort by the course convener. Statistical moderation involves collecting and collating the marks awarded by all single markers in order to compare the distribution of marks between different examiners, between different modules of the same type, and between different types of module. At stage 2 assessed work for: intermediate seminar modules; assessed essays for museology; and the the dissertation portfolio are sample moderated. Sample moderation is undertaken by experienced examiners, and serves as a direct check and feedback process for single markers. Moderators receive a batch of marking from the marker, along with the completed mark sheet and feedback forms; the moderator reviews the marking and feedback on a representative range of the scripts, amounting to at least 10 to 15% of the batch (and at least a further 10% for new markers). The marker then makes any adjustments required in the light of the moderator s comments before the marks and feedback are returned to students. Stage 2 group assessments for museology are double marked by two experienced markers working together. Stage 3 special subject modules are also subject to sample moderation. All dissertations and bridge essays are blind double marked. The two markers both, independently, mark the work and complete a feedback form, then confer and agree marks. Marks are recorded in the University s database system and in the student s file along with the marker s comments, the first marker s feedback is returned to the student. The External Examiners: University Ordinances require that every Board of Examiners must include at least one External Examiner, appointed for a period of three years by Council on the recommendation of the General Academic Board and the Board of Studies concerned. The external examiner is an expert in History of Art from another institution who checks that the standards of assessment within the department are equivalent to those in other comparable institutions. Among other things, the external examiner checks all exam papers before they are sat; reads a significant sample of undergraduate work; and makes sure that disagreements between examiners have been resolved in a satisfactory manner. They do not mark or re-mark pieces of assessed work. The University currently appoints to the Board of Examiners in History of Art three External Examiners for undergraduate work.

Release of Marks and Examination Feedback: Results and feedback from examinations will normally be released as follows: Assessed work for Autumn Term modules: Released during Spring Term Assessed work for Spring-Summer Term modules: Released during Summer Term University Regulations call for marks to be released within six weeks of the assessment. The examiners comments on assessed work should be collected by all students from the Department Office once results have been released on e:vision. Students are strongly encouraged to discuss examination feedback with their Supervisor, so that they can learn and improve on their examination performance. All marks released in this way are provisional and subject to ratification at the Final Exam Board. The Board of Examiners in History of Art: The Board of Examiners is made up of all academic staff in History of Art, together with the External Examiners for the subject. The Board is responsible for the classification of degrees awarded to candidates in Single Subject and Combined Subject History of Art programmes. The Board is also responsible for the review of changes to policy in examination matters. The principal officer of the Board is the Examinations Officer whose responsibility it is to administer the examination procedures (in consultation with the Chair of the Board of Studies and/ or the Head of Department when appropriate), to liaise with the External Examiners and to instigate new policy in this area of the Department s work.

CLASS DESCRIPTORS FOR FORMAL ASSESSMENT: The scale for classifying individual papers, and the criteria against which they are assessed are as follows: First-Class Honours: 1 (70-100) Outstanding work, characterised by depth of knowledge and understanding, critical ability, originality of argument and clarity of exposition. The best work (90 +) will approach a publishable standard. First class work may exhibit some of the following qualities: Command of the subject: depth and breadth of knowledge gained by a close engagement with the module, by thorough research, alert critical reading, and use of initiative in reading beyond the obvious sources; confidence and accuracy in handling sources. Command of ideas: depth of understanding; ability to identify and rigorously confront issues and problems; ability to construct and sustain a coherent and persuasive argument; ability to question, criticise and analyse sources (visual and written) and issues; the ability to synthesise material from disparate sources; the ability to think independently and present original ideas. Command of images and material objects: observational and analytical skills of a high order brought to bear on objects and texts; evidence of a subtle and sensitive response to visual objects and visual culture; the ability to analyse objects in terms of critical issues, ideas or theories Writing skills: control of vocabulary, grammar and syntax in order to give lucid and subtle expression to ideas and arguments, the ability to make points precisely, clearly and forcefully. Upper Second-Class Honours: 2i (60-69) This work shows an ability to write wellinformed essays developing a clear and relevant argument and showing good (historical and or art-historical) understanding of the subject. 2.i work may exhibit some of the following qualities: Command of the subject: evidence of a close engagement with the module, thorough reading, accurate use and citation of sources, awareness of critical points of view, Command of ideas: evidence of good understanding of the issues and problems confronted in the module; ability to construct and sustain a coherent argument; ability to question and analyse sources (visual and written) and issues; the ability to synthesise. Command of images and material objects: good observational and analytical skills brought to bear on objects and texts; evidence of an informed response to visual

objects and visual culture; the ability to identify and discuss relevant objects in terms of issues raised during the module. Writing skills: control of vocabulary, grammar and syntax in order to give clear expression to ideas and arguments. Lower Second-Class Honours: 2ii (50-59) This work is sound and shows a basic understanding of the subject, but essays lack analytical depth and the argument is undeveloped or weakly directed. 2ii work may exhibit some of the following qualities: Command of the subject: Work shows awareness of the main themes of the module, competent repetition of information and ideas from standard texts and lecture or seminar notes; little evidence of independent or critical reading and thinking; some errors of fact. Command of ideas: Work shows a basic understanding of the issues confronted in the module; limited ability to construct an argument, or to question and analyse sources (visual and written) and issues; answers are dominated by description rather than analysis, by narrative rather than argument. Command of images and material objects: Able to observe and describe works of art at a basic level with some ability to relate them to the issues raised during the module. Writing skills: limited ability to organise essays effectively; limited vocabulary, grammar and unsophisticated or unconfident use of syntax. Third-Class Honours: 3 (40-49) This work shows some familiarity with the subject, but is in part ill-informed or erroneous, poorly expounded or developed, and lacks argument. Third class work may exhibit some of the following qualities: Command of the subject: Little awareness of the main topics and issues of the module; little use of lecture/seminar material or of recommended reading; significant errors of fact. Command of ideas: Some recognition of the issues confronted in the module but understanding is partial, inaccurate or confused. Answers tend to irrelevance, showing uncritical and inaccurate recall of data, and weakness in the construction of argument. Command of images and material objects: Reference to visual material used during the module, but shows limited understanding of its relevance.

Writing skills: poor vocabulary, grammar and syntax, weak in the construction of sentences, poor expression of points or ideas. Fail (0-39) 30-39: Marks in this range may be eligible for compensation (see Examinations section 3.4, pp 46-47). There is some evidence that the module has been followed but it has not been adequately understood. There is exceptional weakness in knowledge and understanding, with essays that are often irrelevant or too short and it is difficult to discern basic understanding of the subject and appropriate reading. Command of the subject: attempts to answer questions but very limited content; errors and misconceptions. Command of ideas: Some reference to topics raised by the module but with little understanding of their significance; very limited ability to organise material or concepts. Short and impoverished answers. Command of images and material objects: Limited awareness of the visual material used during the module. Writing skills: Serious weaknesses in the ability to use written English to write a coherent essay. 20-30: Not much evidence of having done the module. Incompetent, incoherent or perfunctory attempt to answer the question. Command of the subject: It is difficult to discern appropriate reading; fails to answer questions; obvious and frequent errors. Command of ideas: Difficult to discern basic understanding of the subject; many serious misconceptions; fails to address topics raised by the module and shows no understanding of their significance; very limited ability to organise material or concepts. Short and impoverished answers. Command of images and material objects: Little or no awareness of the visual material used during the module. Writing skills: Confused, incoherent writing, which does not articulate information or ideas. 0-20: At this level there is no evidence of having done the module. Answers nonexistent, fragmentary or thoroughly irrelevant.

CLASS DESCRIPTORS FOR SEMINAR PERFORMANCE IN SEMINAR MODULES The scale for classifying seminar contribution, which counts for ten percent of each module grade, and the criteria against which they are assessed, are as follows: First-Class Honours: 1 (70-100) In weekly seminar discussions and in formal presentations where required, candidates in this class will be thoroughly prepared and characterised by outstanding levels of participation, depth of knowledge, critical ability, originality and enthusiasm. They will facilitate group discussion through their interaction with others in the seminar, and they will also be exceptionally articulate, contributing regularly and incisively. Selection and integration of visual material, and facility with visual aids will also be of the highest standard. Upper Second-Class Honours: 2i (60-69) In weekly seminar discussions and in formal presentations where required, candidates in this class will be well prepared and demonstrate that they can develop clear and relevant arguments with articulacy and some originality, showing good arthistorical understanding of the subject based on wide reading. They will also participate regularly and enthusiastically in seminar discussions, and be responsive to other students. They will be adept in their selection and integration of visual material and in their use of visual aids. Lower Second-Class Honours: 2ii (50-59) In weekly seminar discussions and in formal presentations where required, candidates in this class will have adequately prepared and demonstrate a basic understanding of the subject. Interventions may be sparse, more descriptive rather than analytical, less detailed, more dependent on secondary sources, not clearly expressed. They may have occasional difficulties in their use of visual aids. Third-Class Honours: 3 (40-49) In weekly seminar discussions and in formal presentations where required, candidates in this class will have done little preparation, and although their interventions will, on occasion, show enthusiasm, be informed and relevant to the topic, they will also, in part, be ill-informed or erroneous, and irrelevant. Candidates in this class will contribute only sporadically to seminar discussions. Fail: (0-39) Candidates in this class will be unprepared for seminars; their contributions may appear largely ill-informed, erroneous or irrelevant. They may fail to give presentations where required, create an environment inappropriate to scholarly debate or contribute rarely, or not at all to seminar discussions. They may make very little effort in their selection and use of visual material.

Determination of degree classification: Degree classification is based on the overall average of marks from modules in Stages 2 and 3, (weighted to take account of the number of credits in each module). When combining the marks for each of the stages, modules from Stage 2 are given a slightly lower weighting than later stages in a ratio of 2:3 for Bachelors (i.e. 40% of the grade is taken from Stage 2 and 60% from Stage 3). This calculation also applies to all combined (joint) degrees. Stage 1 marks are excluded from the classification calculation, although students must still achieve 120 credits in Stage 1 to progress to the second stage of the programme. A worked example is illustrated below. Stage 2 Int. Seminar Module (20 credits) Mark = 57 Int. Seminar Module (20 credits) Mark = 69 Int. Seminar Module (20 credits) Mark = 56 Int. Seminar Module (20 credits) Mark = 62 Museology (20 credits) Mark = 70 Diss. Training Module (20 credits) Credit weighted mean mark for the stage Weighting the stages (2:3) Final degree calculation Stage 3 Special Subject Module (40 credits) Mark = 66 x 2 1 = 132 Special Subject Module (40 credits) Mark = 65 x 2 = 130 Dissertation (40 credits) Mark = 69 x 2 Mark = 51 = 138 365 6 = 60.8 400 6 = 66.7 60.8 x 0.40 = 24.32 66.7 x 0.60 = 40.02 24.32 + 40.02 = 64.34 2 = 64 = Upper second-class Honours 1 Credit-weighting a 40 credit module is worth twice that of a 20 credit module 2 If academic misconduct has been committed, any penalty points will be subtracted at this point and may have a negative impact on degree classification

Borderline Cases: In cases where a student misses the classification above by 2 or fewer marks, using the weighting of stages described above, we look to see if they would have a higher classification if the weighting of the stages was in a different ratio. The next higher classification will be awarded if, and only if, the creditweighted total marks for stages 2 and 3 weighted in the ratios of 1:1 or 1:2 produce a final degree classification in a higher classification band. Weighting the stages (1:1) Final degree calculation 60.8 x 0.5 = 30.4 66.7 x 0.5 = 33.4 30.4+33.4 = 63.8 = 64 Upper second-class honours Weighting the stages (1:2) Final degree calculation 60.8 x 0.33 = 20.1 66.7 x 0.67 = 44.7 20.1+44.7 = 64.8 = 65 = Upper second-class honours No other conditions will be applied or assessments undertaken to determine the final calculation.

3. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES The University defines a mitigating circumstance as a problem that you have encountered which goes beyond the normal difficulties experienced in life and that has affected academic performance adversely during the assessment period for which the claim is being made. The department must be notified of mitigating circumstances by a claim form and supporting evidence no later than 24 hours before the affected submission deadline or examination. It is not acceptable to simply miss an assessed essay handin, or to fail to attend a closed examination, and then seek mitigating circumstances when the department follows up on the absence. (This would only be the case in the most severe of circumstances). In the unlikely event that your mitigating circumstances prevent you from submitting your claim at the appropriate time, you should submit your claim as soon as you are able to do so. The evidence should show clearly why you were unable to submit the claim before the date of the assessment or the deadline for submission of the assessment. If you are requesting an extension you must submit your claim before the submission deadline. For full details of the Department s policies and procedures on mitigating circumstances, please see www.york.ac.uk/history-of-art/current/mitigatingcircumstances/. 4. PENALTIES 1. Late submission All work submitted late, without valid mitigating circumstances, will have 10 marks deducted for each day (or part of each day) that the work is late, up to a total of five days, including weekends and Bank Holidays, e.g. if work is awarded a mark of 57, and the work is up to one day late, the final mark is 47. After five days, the work is marked at zero. Penalties are automatic unless medical or other exceptional, mitigating, evidence is produced at the time. 2. Missed examinations or essays not submitted If a candidate misses an examination or fails to hand in an essay, a set of open essays or a Bridge Essay/Dissertation, without valid mitigating circumstances, that examination will be recorded as having received a mark of zero and the student concerned may fail to meet the requirements of that stage of their degree.

3. Plagiarism Cases of suspected plagiarism will be dealt with according to the procedures stipulated by the University (http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/eto/exams/academicmis.htm). 4. Anonymity If a candidate submits examinable work with his/her name or an image of themselves attached, it will receive the appropriate penalty of up to 3 marks deducted. 5. Overlength, underlength or incomplete work Students are strongly encouraged not to exceed the stipulated word limits for examined work. However the Department acknowledges that certain kinds of essays and dissertations may be slightly longer due to the need for e.g. translations of citations and footnotes. A leeway of 10% on the stipulated limit will therefore not be penalized. Digressions beyond this will incur the following penalties: For work which is up to 20% over- or underlength: deduct up to 3 marks For work which is over 20% over- or underlength: deduct up to 10 marks 6. Poor English, poor presentation (including illustrations), inadequate proofreading Apart from the generally unfavourable opinion which is likely to be produced by poorly presented work, examiners can specify that they are marking scripts down specifically for any or all of those faults, up to a maximum of 5 marks deducted. Dyslexic students should not be penalised, nor should foreign students be penalised for errors of English, so long as their meaning is clear. Procedures for penalising work: In 5 and 6 above, penalties will be applied by the First and Second Examiners. In 1 to 4 above, scripts (if any) will be marked as they stand by the First and Second Examiners. Penalties will be recommended by the Departmental Penalties Committee, comprising the Examinations Officer and the Chair of the Board, in consultation with the Supervisor when there is any question of Special Cases applying.

Recommendations for penalties will be made soon after the incident, and will be communicated to the candidate, who will be given a fortnight to register dissent. However, all penalties will be recommendations only at this stage. They will be (bearing in mind any representations from the candidate) reviewed and either ratified or amended at the Final Examinations Board. Plagiarism will be dealt with according to the relevant University procedures (http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/eto/exams/academicmis.htm). 5. DEADLINES AND SUBMISSIONS The following information applies to the 2013/14 academic year and is subject to change over the course of your degree. STAGE ONE: Encounters with the Material Object: 2 hour closed exam (100%) to be taken in Week 1, Term 2. Critical Readings in the History of Art: Assessed Essay of 1,500 words to be submitted on Tuesday of week 10, Term 1 (90%). Performance in seminars throughout the term (10%). Reinventing Antiquity: 2 hour closed exam (100%) in Week 5, Term 3. Theory: Assessed Essay of 1,500 words to be submitted on Tuesday of week 4, Term 3 (90%). Performance in seminars throughout the term (10%). Field Work Module: Written Assessment (90%) submitted on Wednesday of Week 4, Term 3. Performance in seminars throughout the term (10%). STAGE TWO Intermediate Seminar Module (x 2), Autumn Term: 2-hour closed exam (90%) to be taken in Week 1, Term 5. Performance in seminars throughout the term (10%). Intermediate Seminar Module (x 2), Spring/Summer Terms: 2-hour closed exam (90%) to be taken in Week 5, Term 6. Performance in seminars throughout the term (10%). Dissertation/Bridge Essay Training: Dissertation/bridge essay portfolio of 4,000 words (100%) submitted on Wednesday of Week 7, Term 6. Museology and Curatorship: Assessed Essay of 2,000 words (50%) to be submitted

on Wednesday Week 6, Term 6. Group project (50%) to be presented in Week 6, Term 6. STAGE THREE Special Subject (Autumn Term): 2-day open exam of two 1,500-2,000 word essays (90%) to be collected on Tuesday of week 1, Term 8 and submitted on Thursday of week 1, Term 8. Performance in seminars throughout the term (10%). Special Subject (Spring Term): 2-day open exam of two 2,000 word essays (90%) to be collected on Tuesday of week 6, Term 9 and submitted on Thursday of week 6, Term 9. Performance in seminars throughout the term (10%). History of Art Dissertation: 7-8,000 word dissertation (100%) to be handed in on Thursday of week 5, Term 9. NB. All word totals include quotations and footnotes, but not the bibliography, appendices or plate captions. In the case of the dissertation portfolio, where the bibliography is a significant part of the assessment, the bibliography is included within the total word count. Deadlines: The dates and times when assessed work is due in are announced in each edition of the Handbook, with the caveat that they may be revised at times during the student s course. When there is revision, students are informed by email and the departmental noticeboard well in advance of the deadline. Special Arrangements: Students seeking special arrangements for examinations (for dyslexia, medical causes, disability or other personal reasons) should discuss the matter with the Chair of the Board of Studies in the first instance. They should also contact Disability Services who will conduct an assessment of their special arrangements and make a recommendation to the Department. A recommendation must be received by the department no later than six weeks prior to the affected assesment(s). For more information please see https://www.york.ac.uk/students/studying/assessment-andexamination/disability/.

6. PROGRESSION Our BA programmes of study are made up of stages. Each stage comprises of modules covering different topics. Modules are of different sizes and shapes and credits are awarded if assessment requirements are met. In each stage students are registered on 120 credits worth of modules. Each module will be assessed and students need to pass enough of these assessments to pass the modules, accumulate the 120 credits and progress to the next stage of the programme. What are stages? Each stage of an undergraduate degree programme is equivalent to a year of full-time study. Students must satisfy the requirements for one stage of their programme before being able to progress to the next stage. For a Bachelors degree, a credit-weighted average mark of 40 for each stage is required. If, after marks have been calculated and any necessary compensation and reassessment procedures have been applied, a student does not reach the mark necessary for progression to the next stage, there are no other opportunities for continuing on the degree programme. There are no opportunities for taking modules again. How do modules and module credits relate to stages? Each stage is made up of modules. Each of the modules undertaken has a credit value (e.g. 10 credits 20 credits etc.) and a credit level. Credit for a module is achieved by passing the module assessments. Modules are assessed by a range of methods which will result in a numerical module mark out of 100. In order to satisfy the requirements for each stage, students must achieve 120 credits. If a student badly fails a module assessment (below 30), they will have to be reassessed but there is a limit to the amount of reassessment allowed (see below for more detail). If the failure is marginal (39 30), reassessment may not be necessary if the student s overall performance in the stage is good enough to compensate. Again, there is a limit to the amount of compensation which is allowed (see below). Compensation: For modules in stages 1, 2 and 3, the pass mark for module assessments is 40. However, if the awarded mark for a module is in the 30 39 range, it may still be possible for a student to get the credits for the module if their performance in other modules is good enough to compensate. In other words, marginal failure in one module may be compensated by achievement in others. There is, however, a limit to the amount of credit which can be compensated. The following are provided purely as examples: In this example from a Bachelors programme, assuming no modules have been designated as non-compensatable, a maximum of 40 credits-worth of modules can

be compensated if there are no modules with marks below 30 (after reassessment) and the credit-weighted mean over all modules taken in the stage is at least 40. A student has the following profile of module marks: Module A (20 credits): 38 (Fail) Module B (20 credits): 38 (Fail) Module C (20 credits): 50 (Pass) Module D (20 credits): 50 (Pass) Module E (20 credits): 50 (Pass) Module F (10 credits): 50 (Pass) Module G (10 credits): 50 (Pass) In this example, none of the modules has been designated as non-compensatable, none of the module marks is below 30 and the credit-weighted mean over all modules in the stage is 46. Therefore, the marginal failure in Modules A and B can be compensated by the achievement in Modules C-G. Reassessment A module mark below 30 cannot be compensated and reassessment is necessary. However, there is a limit to the number of credits failed below 30 in which can be reassessed. If a student attains a mark between 30 and 39 and they are not eligible for compensation, they may also need to be reassessed in those modules. The amount of credit eligible for reassessment is lower in stage 3 than in the earlier stages. Please note that not all modules can be reassessed. The seminar performance element of stage 1 seminar modules, the group project element of the Field Work module in stage 2 and the Dissertation in stage 3 cannot be reassessed. Reassessment is only possible once for each module. If a student fails a module and reassessment, they will not be able to progress and will fail the programme. They may, however, be eligible to receive a lower award. If a student fails a module that cannot be reassessed or compensated, they will not be able to progress and will fail the programme. They may, however, be eligible to receive a lower award. Students who fail and are reassessed in a module will not be allowed to gain an advantage over those who passed the module first time. We do this by capping the stage mark (not the module mark) after reassessment at 40, which therefore affects the degree classification calculation.

The marks for all modules are included on student s final transcripts. The following are provided as examples. In Stages 1 and 2 of a Bachelors programme, reassessment opportunities are available in modules up to a total of 90 credits, providing that no more than 50 credits have a module mark of less than 30. For example, a student has the following profile of module marks: Module A (20 credits): 29 (F) Module B (20 credits): 28 (F) Module C (20 credits): 38 (F) Module D (20 credits): 38 (F) Module E (20 credits): 65 (P) Module F (10 credits): 65 (P) This student must be reassessed on Modules A and B (marks below 30) and has the option to be reassessed in modules C and D because there are less than 50 credits with a mark below 30 and the total reassessment required is for 80 credits. In such cases, students should discuss their decision with their academic supervisor. It is possible that, if Modules A & B are passed on reassessment, then Modules C & D could be compensated for. Module G (10 credits): 60 (P) In Stage 3 of a Bachelors programme, reassessment opportunities are available in modules up to a total of 40 credits. For example, a student has the following profile of marks: Module A (20 credits): 29 (F) Module B (20 credits): 46 (P) Module C (20 credits): 60 (P) This student must be reassessed in Module A because the mark is below 30 and therefore cannot be compensated. Module D (20 credits): 60 (P) Module E (20 credits): 65 (P) If a student has a marginal fail in a module (a mark between 30-39) and it can be compensated (see above), they can choose to be reassessed in that module (as long as it does not take them over the number of reassessment opportunities permitted in the stage). Failure and Early Exit: If a student does not meet the requirements for a stage, they will not be able to progress, and if in the final stage of their programme they do not achieve the required credits they will not be able to graduate with their intended award (Bachelors, Honours, etc). However, they may be eligible for an alternative

award based on the credits already achieved. Similarly, if, for whatever reason, a student chooses to leave the University part way through their programme, they may be eligible for an early exit award based on credits achieved. For example, if a student does not meet the progression requirement from Stage 2 to 3 they may be eligible for a Certificate of Higher Education (based on the 120 credits achieved in Stage 1). In Stage 3 of a Bachelors programme, if they do not achieve all 120 credits for the stage they may still be eligible for an Ordinary degree (300 credits) or a Diploma of Higher Education (240 credits). Students with a Period of Study Away from York Students often take advantage of the University s Exchange Schemes in their second year (Stage 2). In these cases, the marks from the foreign university are converted to the York scale using the University s conversion table and, if necessary, marks are averaged or combined to produce the required number of weighted exam marks. 7. APPEALS Students are referred to Regulation 6, which sets out the University s appeals procedure for undergraduate students. See Procedures for Undergraduate Students: Academic Appeals and Hearings at http://www.york.ac.uk/about/departments/support-and-admin/registryservices/appeals/. Last updated: August 2013