4: Assessments and Examinations
In this section of the Handbook, we will provide information about the assessment methods that are used throughout the Degree programme, as well as the various policies and procedures that are in place. You can find details of all policies relating to Assessment and Feedback on our Assessment and Feedback WebpagesLink opens in a new window. In particular, here you will find a link to the Department's Assessment Strategy.
Our assessment arrangements, based on both end-of-year examinations and on assessed work through the year, contrast with those in other highly-regarded departments of economics in other UK universities where practice is often based solely on end-of-year (or even end-of-course) examinations. The continuous nature of assessment motivates you to study effectively throughout the academic year and provides opportunities for continuous feedback, thereby encouraging deeper learning and reflection.
You will receive feedback on your work in a variety of ways and it we encourage you to make use of all opportunities for feedback, as a means of developing your skills, reflecting on your work and enhancing your student experience.
Coursework and tests
We aim to give you the opportunity to reflect on your development and progress as you proceed through your degree at Warwick. Much of your time here will be spent engaged in coursework. This includes locating information, taking notes, carrying out calculations and analysis, preparing reports for class discussions, completing exercises, and writing essays and projects. To this end, we use a variety of different types of assessments.
Assessed and non-assessed coursework
Coursework can be either 'assessed' or 'non-assessed'.
Most assessments will give a mark that contributes to your First Year mark or Honours credit. These assessments are called 'summative' and they define the progress you have made towards the module's learning objectives. However, some coursework is informally assessed, and we call these 'formative' assessments, which provide you with feedback on your progress and advice on how to maintain or improve it, but the mark will not count towards the final module mark. For example, in some First Year modules, while formal assessment of your performance is via mid-term tests, coursework and a summer exam, some class assignments and essays are assessed informally so that both you and your tutor/lecturer can monitor your progress.
Assessment often combines both formative and summative elements, for example, when work is returned to you with a mark and feedback of one form or another. Only in end-of-year exams is assessment purely summative, though generic examination feedback is provided after the September exam period.
We give you more exercise sheets, tests and problem sets on the core modules in the first and second years to provide you with more continuous feedback on how you are performing against the standards we set and to allow you to reflect on your progress. It also gives you time to learn about the standards that will be applied to your coursework in the Second and Final Years, and allows you to make a few mistakes without damaging your prospects. During your Second and Final years, you will complete a mixture of summative assessments and exams.
Non-assessed coursework is not less important than assessed coursework, and is just as compulsory, forming an essential part of the learning process in all modules. You will benefit from it intellectually, psychologically, and in your examination performance. You need to submit all work, whether formal or informal, by the deadlines set. Working to deadlines is a skill which employers look for from graduates.
Make sure you use module Support and Feedback classes as well as Advice and Feedback hours to help you prepare for your assessments.
Many modules have mid-term tests, which are summative assessments that contribute to your final module mark. You can find details of the assessment weights for each Economics module on the module webpages. The timing of each test will be added to our timetableLink opens in a new window and on Tabula once they have been set. Most of the in-term tests will take place online, using various software and details will be provided to you.
If you require special arrangements for tests, please contact the UG office to make us aware of this, providing the relevant documentation from Disability ServicesLink opens in a new window.
Performance is classified into five broad categories of: First; Upper Second (2.1); Lower Second (2.2); Third; Fail. There are a range of marks for each of the classes and the marking criteria are provided in the table below:
|First||Demonstrates command of the subject matter including, where appropriate, methodological, technical and scholarship skills.||Presents a tightly-focused, relevant and well-structured answer with full and accurate development of concepts/theories, and excellent use of evidence.||Understands and evaluates relevant arguments, debates and/or interpretations in a manner that demonstrates a developed capacity for independent thought. This may amount to an extension of existing arguments, debates and /or interpretations.||Provides a thorough and consistent deployment of techniques of academic writing with particular reference to structure, referencing/sourcing and spelling/grammar.|
|2:1||Demonstrates good appreciation of the subject matter including, where appropriate, methodological, technical and scholarship skills.||Presents a coherent and closely-argued answer with good structure, accurate use of concepts/theories, and good use of evidence.||Understands and evaluates relevant arguments, debates and/or interpretations in a manner that demonstrates a capacity for independent thought.||Provides a good deployment of techniques of academic writing with particular reference to structure, referencing/sourcing and spelling/grammar.|
|2:2||Demonstrates an understanding of core aspects of the subject matter including, where appropriate, methodological, technical and scholarship skills.||Presents an answer to the question taking into account appropriate structure, development of concepts/theories and reasonable use of evidence.||Understands and reproduces relevant arguments, debates and/or interpretations.||Acknowledges and employs techniques of academic writing with particular reference to structure, referencing/sourcing and spelling/grammar|
|Third||Demonstrates some familiarity with the subject matter including, where appropriate, methodological, technical and scholarship issues.||Shows an understanding of the question with some structure, knowledge of concepts/theories and use of evidence.||Demonstrates some awareness of relevant arguments, debates, and/or interpretations.||Shows awareness of techniques of academic writing with particular reference to structure, referencing/sourcing and spelling/grammar.|
|Fail||Demonstrates little evidence of familiarity with the subject matter including, where appropriate, methodological, technical and scholarship skills.||Demonstrates a poor grasp of the question with loose structure, little knowledge of concepts/theories and inadequate use of evidence.||Demonstrates little awareness of relevant arguments, debates, and/or interpretations.||Provides a poor demonstration of techniques of academic writing with particular reference to structure, referencing/sourcing and spelling/grammar.|
The 20-point scale
The 20-point scale is a University-wide marking scale. It is based on a mapping of the five broad class categories into a 20-point marking scale, as set out in the table below.
These procedures do not apply to quantitative problems or short-answer questions, which are marked using the whole range of marks between 0 and 100. The 20-point marking scale applies to essay-type questions (both coursework and examination).
For example, an essay which is deemed to be an Upper Second class piece of work may be awarded only the mark of 62 or 65 or 68 within the range 60 to 69, according to whether the work is judged to be of low, medium or high worth, respectively, within the corresponding class. One of the motivations for the scale is to encourage essay markers to use higher marks within the first class range and lower marks in the fail range.
For those modules in which the examination paper is made up of a combination of essay-type questions and quantitative problems or short-answer questions, the 20-point scale is relevant only for the essay elements. The final mark will continue to emerge as an aggregation of individual marks, where these individual marks have been obtained in different ways. Note that this means that the aggregate mark itself is not constrained to be one of the 20 marks on the scale.
|First||Excellent 1st||100 |
|Exceptional work of the highest quality, demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. At Final Year level: work may achieve or be close to publishable standard.|
|High 1st||88|| |
Very high quality work demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. Work which may extend existing debates or interpretations.
|Upper Mid 1st||82|
|Lower Mid 1st||78|
|Upper Second (2.1)||High 2:1||68|| |
High quality work demonstrating good knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills.
|Lower Second||High 2:2||58|| |
Competent work, demonstrating reasonable knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills.
|Third||High 3rd||48|| |
Work of limited quality, demonstrating some relevant knowledge and understanding.
|Low 3rd|| |
|Fail||High Fail (sub Honours)||38||Work does not meet standards required for the appropriate stage of an Honours degree. Evidence of study and demonstrates some knowledge and some basic understanding of relevant concepts and techniques, but subject to significant omissions and errors.|
|Fail||32||Work is significantly below the standard required for the appropriate stage of an Honours degree. Some evidence of study and some knowledge and evidence of understanding but subject to very serious omissions and errors.|
|25||Poor quality work well below the standards required for the appropriate stage of an Honours Degree.|
|Zero||Zero||0||Work of no merit OR Absent; work not submitted; penalty in some misconduct cases.|
Submitting your work
Please note that most modules will require submission of assessment by e-submission and this is done via Tabula. No modules will require a paper copy to be submitted. It is your responsibility to make sure you check the module webpage and/or with the module leader about the submission arrangements for each module.
A large amount of your coursework will be submitted and marked electronically and the Department uses Tabula for e-submissions, for recording your marks and for providing you with feedback. If you are granted an extension it will also appear on Tabula. You are asked to read the guidance on the e-submission system carefully before using it.
It is your responsibility to check that you are submitting the correct document to the correct module assignment and you are asked to check your assignment before finally submitting. If you do submit the wrong assignment, you are able to re-submit the correct one, but you will receive the normal late submission penalty if the correct assignment is submitted after the deadline. This applies to both individual work and group work, where penalties will be applied to all group members, even if the group designated one person as responsible for submission.
You can submit your work electronically up until 14:00 (GMT) on the deadline day and all work is date-and time-coded. Penalties will be applied to work submitted after this time. You are strongly encouraged to complete e-submission prior to 13:00 (GMT) on the day of the deadline in order that you can inform us of any problems that may arise. The system can become very busy just before a deadline and neither this, nor computer difficulties will be accepted as a reason for late submission.
If you are submitting assessed coursework to other departments, you should familiarise yourself with that department’s particular submission deadlines and methods, as these may differ to those in the Department of Economics.
All electronically submitted work is marked online and feedback on this assessed work will also be provided via Tabula. You will receive a notification when your feedback is available to download on Tabula.
As most of your work will be submitted electronically, there are some key points to follow to ensure you don't make a mistake:
- You should ensure that your document includes your student I.D. number, but not your name, as all marking is done anonymously. You must also include the final word count.
- The assignment must be a 100% electronic submission and so any object such as graphs, figures or equations will have to be incorporated into your electronic document.
- To submit your document online, once you have produced your final electronic file as e.g. a Word document, you will need to create a PDF document from that Word document. To create a PDF document you can download a copy of the free software PDF converter from ITS (www.warwick.ac.uk/services/its/servicessupport/software/pdfconverterLink opens in a new window) and follow the instructions.
- Name the resultant PDF file as follows: module code-assignment number.pdf. For example, ec208-a1.pdf would be the name for your first assignment for EC208-Industrial Economics 1. ec307-a2.pdf would be the name for your second assignment for EC307- Macroeconomic Policy in the UK.
- Check the final document before uploading to ensure it has been converted accurately, including checking graphs and equations.
- Double check you are submitting the correct document and that you are submitting it to the correct module/assessment.
- If you submit more than one document for your assignment these must be submitted simultaneously (holding down the Ctrl key while selecting your files allows you to select multiple files).
- Upload the PDF via Tabula. If you have a technical problem with your submission then you should print off the error page and then email the PDF submission and error page to email@example.comLink opens in a new window. However, given that you should have left enough time to resolve any difficulties, this will not be accepted as an excuse for a late submission.
Deadlines, Extensions, Exemptions and Absences
Each piece of work for your Economics modules must be submitted by 14.00 p.m. (GMT) on a particular date, as set by the UG Office and approved by the module leader. You will be given notice of these deadlines through Tabula. The University’s guidance to markers specifies a minimum of four term-time weeks’ notice of deadlines. If you are taking a module in another Department, you should check with that Department to find out the submission deadline and method.
It is your responsibility to arrange your own schedule and manage your time accordingly. We advise you always to leave a safety margin in case of last-minute difficulties in obtaining books, printing files, computer issues and so on. Aim to submit the piece of work a day or more before the final deadline and if it is a piece of group work, double check with your group members that it has been submitted. No reduction in late penalties will be made if you find you cannot upload the material before the deadline or if you thought that another member of your group was supposed to upload the work. It is your responsibility to ensure all work is submitted within the deadline and errors after the deadline will receive a penalty. Also bear in mind that demand on the system is likely to be high in the last hours before the final deadline.
If you submit work after the deadline, your work will be marked subject to a penalty in the form of a deduction of percentage points from the awarded mark. You will receive a five percentage point (marks) deduction per day (excluding Saturdays and Sundays, Bank Holidays and University closure days) thereafter, with a minimum mark for that assessment of zero.
The following table shows how the penalty system works (penalties are given in percentage points):
|Day/Time Submitted||Submission Deadline|
|After deadline Mon and Before deadline Tues||5|
|After deadline Tues and Before deadline Weds||10||5|
|After deadline Weds and Before deadline Thurs||15||10||5|
|After deadline Thurs and Before deadline Fri||20||15||10||5|
|After deadline Fri and Before deadline successive Mon||25||20||15||10||5|
|After deadline Mon and Before deadline successive Tues||25||20||15||10||5|
|After deadline Tues and Before deadline successive Weds||30||25||20||15||10|
|After deadline Weds and Before deadline successive Thurs||35||30||25||20||15|
|After deadline Thurs and Before deadline successive Fri||40||35||30||25||20|
|With a further five points for each day, excluding weekends|
For work that is submitted electronically, do not leave it too close to the last minute. Penalties cannot be removed in situations where the network was busy around the time of the submission deadline. You must also check your submitted work as invited to do so when e-submitting. If you initially submit the wrong document and either you or the marker identifies this, you can still submit the correct one, but a late penalty will be applied as detailed above. Penalties cannot be adjusted if you or we later find that you have submitted a wrong file or a corrupted document. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are submitting the correct assignment to the correct link by the deadline.
For problem sets, where solutions are discussed in module Support and Feedback classes immediately after submission, any late submissions will receive a mark of zero.
Extensions and Exemptions
If you submit work after the deadline, your work will be marked subject to a penalty and if you miss a mid-term test or final examination, you will be given a mark of zero in that assessment. However, during the year there may be times when you are unwell and this might occur in close proximity to assessment deadlines or on the day of a test or examination.
All cases (extensions/class/test/examination absences) of mitigating circumstances evidence should be submitted via the personal circumstances portal in Tabula. Even if you are taking a module that is offered by a different academic department, it is still your home department (Economics) which makes the decision on an extension or an exemption. Further details regarding mitigating circumstances for examinations are given in section 4.11.4Link opens in a new window. Some departments may have their own form for an extension or exemption, which might need signing by the Student Wellbeing and Progression Officer, once you have submitted evidence. It is your responsibility to check this for each module you are taking.
All extension and exemption requests are considered by the Student Wellbeing and Progression Officer, in consultation with the Director of Undergraduate Studies. They are not considered by your lecturer, class tutor or personal tutor. If you are thinking of asking for an extension or exemption, you should first ask yourself whether you could have reasonably foreseen the reason for your late submission or absence and taken action to avoid this. If so, in fairness to those students in similar situations who took the necessary steps or precautions, your request is unlikely to be granted.
All applications and evidence are considered against the twin criteria of force majeure and evidence. If your request is necessitated by factors over which you have no control, and which you could not have reasonably anticipated (force majeure), and if these factors can be documented in some way, your request will normally be approved. Extensions or exemptions may be granted on compassionate grounds, e.g. death or serious illness in your immediate family.
Evidence that is in any other language than English must be accompanied by an official translation. All evidence must be submitted in a timely manner, which means within one week of the deadline or date of the assessment. If your illness is of a short duration, usually 5 days, you can submit a self-certification for the following module assessments:
EC107 – Group work,
EC122 - Problem set,
EC124 – Statistical Project Essay and Problem set,
EC204 – Essay 1 & Essay 2,
EC226 – Group work assignment (problem set)
EC307 – Presentation
EC331 - Literature Review
EC346 - Assignment 2 Written Report
This must be submitted to the department within 3 days. Only two self-certifications are permitted each academic year and they are closely monitored. All other assessments worth less than 10% are not available for self-certification. For any assessment worth more than 10% or one that is less than 10% but where self-certification is not permitted, official documentation is required. It is your responsibility to ensure that you upload the evidence and submit the form within one week of the date of the absence. We will not chase you for the evidence and if you do not provide it or it is insufficient and doesn't confirm the dates you are claiming for, your absence will not be condoned.
If an extension is granted, a new deadline will be set by the Student Wellbeing and Progression Officer. Submission of work after this new deadline will be subject to the normal late submission penalties.
Any requests for extensions should be made in a timely manner and ideally before the deadline. However, extensions can be applied retroactively, lifting any late penalty you might have already received for that assessment. Should there be an unexplained delay of more than one week before submitting medical evidence, we may not be able to agree to your extension request. Bear in mind that your request will not be the only one coming in, especially during periods of numerous submissions deadlines. Please allow reasonable time for the situation to be resolved before contacting the UG office.
For assessments that are spread over a long period of time, such as dissertations or coursework, there is an expectation that almost every student will encounter some difficulties in their lives during this period. As a result, it is anticipated that you will handle these situations without impacting on your final submission. Thus, low-level and short-term illnesses and factors such as problems with computers, will not be considered as a basis for an extension for this type of work. This differs from assessments which have a shorter time to complete. For problem sets, where solutions are discussed in module Support and Feedback classes immediately after submission, no extensions can be granted, but you may be condoned from the assessment, based on the evidence.
Please note that you can only be condoned for the non-submission of assessed work up to 6 CATS in any one academic year (and up to 3 CATS in any one module). If you exceed either of these limits you will automatically be awarded a mark of 0 for any subsequent assessments which are missed.
Any assessed work which is missed up the limits mentioned in the previous paragraph, will have the weighting equally distributed across all the other assessed work (including the exams) for the module.
Information on solution availability can be obtained from module leaders.
Regularly refused reasons for extension requests
If you are thinking of applying for a coursework extension or exemption from a test, you should be aware that, if your reason is the same or similar to those given below, your request is likely to be refused.
"I travelled abroad over the vacation and was unable to obtain references from local libraries."
Comment: The University doesn’t require you to do academic work in the vacation. It may be a good thing if you do, but some students have to undertake paid employment. You could, and in this case should, have at least completed your research for the essay in term time.
"I travelled abroad over the vacation and as a result I returned late to the University or I had a poor internet connection whilst abroad."
Comment: The University requires you to be in residence in term time, and most assessments are submitted electronically. If you are concerned about poor internet connection you need to check before travelling whether this will be an issue.
"I have a last-minute invitation to an important job interview for which I need to prepare a presentation."
Comment: You knew you’d applied for the job, and building in some slack for interviews is just part of normal time management. You should plan to research and write assessed coursework with a margin to spare so that complications like this, which are predictable, don’t put you into a spin. However, your request will be viewed sympathetically if you get several last-minute invitations to interviews in quick succession. If the interview or assessment centre falls on the day of a test and you have evidence that this event cannot be moved, we may be able to consider an exemption request.
"I had too many other important things going on and forgot to submit my essay on the right day, but my file is dated the day before the deadline, proving that my essay was ready beforehand."
Comment: You have to give the right degree of priority to your academic work. The date on a file is easily manipulated.
"I was about to submit my essay on the day of the deadline when my computer crashed/was stolen, meaning I could not access e-submission website/access my file to upload."
Comment: Don't leave essential tasks to the last minute; please leave plenty of time to upload your work via e-submission, leaving a margin of error in case of technical difficulties. Always make regular backup copies of files both physically, such as on a memory stick, and using online facilities. Transport issues will also not be accepted as an excuse for late submission.
I submitted the wrong file to the e-submission website, but didn't notice at the time/I submitted the file for the wrong assessment/to the wrong department's system"
Comment: You should review your submission before confirming or submitting. Students submitting the wrong file or submitting to the wrong module on tabula will be able to re-submit the correct document, but will receive a late submission penalty based on when the deadline was and when the correct document was submitted. It is your responsibility to check that you have submitted the correct file to the correct assessment/department.
The Department cannot grant an extension to a test or reschedule the date of any test. If you are unable to take a mid-term test or your illness is of such long duration that it prevents you from submitting a piece of work within an appropriate extension, you can apply for an exemption, so that the work is condoned. The weighting of the assessment is normally passed onto your final examination for that module. In the case of WBS modules, if an assessment is missed or not submitted and you request an exemption based on mitigating circumstances, this will not be considered until the Exam Board. You will be given a mark of zero and this will only be condoned when the Exam Board meets.
Once again, all evidence should be submitted via the mitigating circumstances portal in tabula and should be submitted in a timely manner (one week for official documentation and 3 days for self-certifications).
Please note that requests made to condone absences from tests due to attendance at an interview or an assessment centre will not normally be accepted, unless there is clear evidence that the interview could not be postponed. This does NOT apply for examinations. We expect you to make clear to potential employers who may invite you to attend interviews and assessment centres that you have certain commitments throughout the academic year, and that attending tests is a compulsory part of your course.
These reasons for absences will not normally be condoned:
- Open Days
- family celebrations
- mistakes with travel arrangements
- mistake with time or location of test
Please note that this list is not exhaustive.
If you are unable to give a presentation due to illness (for example in EC304 or EC331), your tutor will re-schedule your presentation so long as you provide valid evidence for your mitigating circumstance to the UG office.
If you are not sure into which category a given assessment falls, please ask the UG office.
Research in Applied Economics (RAE) final project
EC331 Research in Applied Economics (RAE) is a core module for Final Year students on L100, L116 and GL11, an optional core for the various Modern Languages joint degrees and is optional for some other Economics joint degrees. The module is unusual in the Department in that it is assessed entirely by coursework (two assessments and the final project). We have received feedback from External Examiners and employers that this is a valuable module in terms of challenging you, by providing a bridge into an MSc degree, and through giving you a platform to demonstrate the accumulation of learning from your economics degree.
RAE provides a vehicle for you to apply your knowledge and skills to a project of your own choosing in order to deepen and broaden understanding of that knowledge, develop expertise in a specific area of interest, build self-confidence through the development of an idea to fruition and discover how economic ideas can be applied to a specific problem.
Over the last several years, a number of our RAE students have been selected to present their final project at the Carroll RoundLink opens in a new window — an International Conference for Undergraduate Research held at Georgetown University, alongside students from other leading Economics Departments around the world, including Harvard, NYU, LSE and Oxford. Others have had the opportunity to present their final project at the British Conference of Undergraduate ResearchLink opens in a new window, the ICURLink opens in a new window and the International Atlantic Economic SocietyLink opens in a new window.
Good practice in assessment
The expectations for an academic essay are quite particular. If you are unfamiliar with more formal writing, we strongly encourage you to engage with the new Academic Writing Skills course and to familiarize yourself with any module-specific writing guides. The Academic Writing Skills course is a compulsory component of the Personal Development Module (PDM)Link opens in a new window that you complete in your first year.
Additional sources of advice on essay writing include:
- Information Skills for Economists; in particular, section 6 on ‘Referencing and avoiding plagiarism’.
- departmental guidance in the form of marking criteria
- your module Support and Feedback class tutor, module lecturer, and module leader
- the study skills sessions organised by Careers & Skills
- The Warwick Library’s Economics resources
- regular drop-in session with the Economics Librarian in the Department (TBA during the term).
- In-sessional English language classes provided by Warwick Foundation Studies
Not every module in your program will include a written assignment; however, good writing skills are needed across all aspects of your degree. Even your core Mathematics and Statistics modules will include discussion questions in problem sets, tests, and exams. A well composed response can have an impact on the grade you receive; after all, if your reasoning is not clear, how is it to be understood and graded correct. If you are not a confident English speaker or writer, Warwick Foundation Studies does provide in-sessional language classes.
Written assessments take a long time to complete. Plan carefully the amount of time you need to research, plan, compose, reference, and edit your essay. Do not leave the submission of your work until the last minute; build in some time to put things right in case your computer crashes or there are issues with the Tabula submission portal. Finally, please back up your files regularly.
It is advisable for you to draw diagrams and write complex equations with computer packages where possible in order to further enhance your skills in this area. Pages should be numbered and submissions should be anonymous. You should include your student i.d. number on each page, but not your name.
Please remember that work is judged on quality rather than quantity, and you must adhere to word limits and include your final word count clearly on your essay. If you feel you can say what you need to say in fewer words, then do so. We do not include a 10% margin above the word count. Excessive length will be penalised and the marker may ignore any material in excess of the word limit. Module leaders will indicate any exceptions to the standard word limit regulations, such as references. Do not include additional material in the form of lengthy footnotes or appendices unless this is specifically authorised by the coursework assignment.
Creating a bibliography
Include a complete reference list (bibliography) at the end of your essay. It should contain all references that you cite in the text; no more and no less. Markers are wise to ‘bibliography padding’: including references that have not been cited in order to make the essay appear better researched.
In Economics we recommend using the Harvard referencing style. If you choose to use a different style, you must please do so consistently within any particular assignment. More information on how to use the Harvard referencing style can be found on the university library’s webpage for Economics - Referencing.
Your reference list should be sorted alphanumerically: by author(s)'s last name(s) and then publication date. The book or journal title should be italicized with the title of the article or chapter in single quotation marks. This in accordance with the principle that the library catalogue entry gets italicised. The place of publication and publisher should be included when referencing published books. When citing an article (chapter) you should also include the page number range (first and last) for that article in the journal (book).
Here are a few examples:
- Reference list entry for a book:
Allen, R. (2009) The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Reference list entry for a chapter in an edited book:
Howlett, W.P. (1994) ‘The Wartime Economy, 1939-1945’, in Floud, R. and McCloskey, D. (eds) The Economic History of Britain Since 1700: Vol. 3. 1700-1860. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-31.
- Reference list entry for a journal article:
Lucas, R.E. (1972) ‘Expectations and the Neutrality of Money’, Journal of Economic Theory, 4, pp. 103-24.
Marking, moderation and feedback
We have a rigorous and robust marking and moderation process, as set out in our assessment and feedback strategy for all assessments. By setting out the rigorous steps taken in marking assessments, we aim to create a transparent and trustworthy system, such that you can be confident in the assessment process and in the marks you receive. You are not permitted to question the validity of your mark on any assessed work, as academic judgement cannot be challenged, but you are encouraged to use all the forms of feedback available to clarify and deepen your understanding and knowledge.
You will receive a grade and comments on assessed work; this is just one form of feedback. Where relevant, the lecturer will also provide generic feedback about what was expected, together with reflections on what you typically did well or where you might have struggled. Feedback also comes in many other forms and you should take advantage of them all. The two online Advice and Feedback hours that all academic staff hold weekly are prime opportunities for you to receive one-to-one feedback. Module Support and Feedback classes allow you to review exercises, discuss questions, gain feedback from your tutor, as well as providing opportunities for peer-to-peer feedback. Problem-set solutions (verbal or written) are another form of feedback and you are encouraged to use module Support and Feedback classes and Advice and Feedback hours to discuss them. We also use discussion forums for some individual modules, where you can post questions and comments and receive feedback from the module team.
We encourage you to make use of all opportunities for feedback, as a means of developing your skills, reflecting on your work and enhancing your student experience.
Marking and moderation
A percentage mark will be awarded and recorded on each piece of assessed coursework. All marks that contribute towards end of first year or final degree credit are moderated across the range of marks and across the first markers. Usually this involves taking a preliminary sample, then sampling more thoroughly where the preliminary sample indicates discrepancies. The agreed marks remain provisional until confirmed by the external examiner at the end of your Final Year. Thus, you are told your marks on a provisional basis. Due to moderation, the mark on your assessment may not be the same as the mark on Tabula. The mark on Tabula is your final moderated mark.
We want to reassure you that the marking and moderation for all our assessments is fair, consistent, robust and reliable and hence give you confidence that when you receive a mark, the mark has been arrived at following a detailed and rigorous process. You can find further details about the marking and moderation process on the Department's Assessment and Feedback pages.
If you have any concerns or feedback about the assessment process then please contact the Assessment and Feedback Coordinator, who is one of our Deputy Directors of Undergraduate Studies in the first instance.
Return of marked assessed work
Marked assessed work (excluding examinations and the RAE final project) will normally be available to you on Tabula within 20 University working days after the submission deadline.
Please also see the University Policy on the Timing of the Provision of Feedback to Students on Assessed Work.
Feedback on your assessed work
We take very seriously the provision of feedback to you on assessed work, most of which is electronic. We are sensitive to the importance of this and have mechanisms in place to enhance the quality of the feedback on assessed work. The Warwick tradition is to give some weight to assessed work submitted through the year, especially during years 1 and 2, to enable you to gauge your progress over time from the comments and marks you receive at regular intervals.
Feedback will be provided in a variety of ways. You may receive written comments on your work, or as a separate linked document, or as a summary of comments on the feedback sheet. These might indicate what was done well in your assessment, those areas where you could improve and a general evaluation of your coursework in aspects of presentation, structure and referencing. These comments should enable you to understand the basis of the mark you have been given and how you may improve your work in the future. You will also find the mark you received on Tabula. Feedback may be in the form of your submitted answers along with the correct test answers. In addition, we provide generic feedback on assessments, which will provide more general comments on the cohort's performance on this assessment. It will outline particular aspects that were done well, common problems and ways to improve, as well as an overall assessment of performance, including a cumulative distribution function, which will allow you to determine how you performed relative to your peers.
If you are not satisfied with the quality of the feedback you have received, you should approach the module lecturer or the module Support and Feedback tutor. However, prior to doing this, you must be able to demonstrate that you have reviewed your personal feedback and the generic feedback and reflected on both through re-reading your work. You are also advised to make use of Advice and Feedback hours to further discuss your feedback, noting, however, that markers are not permitted to re-read your assessment. Academic judgement cannot be challenged. If you still need more information email the UG Office, who will forward your request for more feedback to the Director of Undergraduate Studies.
Other types of feedback on your progress
Feedback to you is provided in a variety of ways. There are many channels through which we give feedback other than only at the point of returning assessed work. Here are some of the different ways in which we provide you with feedback:
- Module Support and Feedback classes complement in person lectures and are intended to give you the opportunity to test your understanding of material. In most module Support and Feedback classes, you will be expected to prepare some exercises or problem sets in advance and these will be discussed in the class. You will then have time during the module Support and Feedback class to work through a new set of questions, usually in groups and with the help of the tutor, before presenting answers to the rest of the class. We try to keep the number of students in these classes as small as possible so that your needs can be accommodated.
- Pieces of non-assessed work, in addition to assessed work and tests, are collected periodically and feedback on these is given by tutors.
- Tutors and lecturers are accessible by email and available for both online and face to face Advice and Feedback hours to receive and respond to individual clarification questions.
- A number of modules run online blogs or forums through which lecturers and tutors can respond to issues that you raise.
- Where you wish to have feedback on more general issues beyond module-specific questions, feedback can be obtained from a variety of sources including the UG Office, the Director of Undergraduate Studies, your Personal Tutor, the Senior Tutor, the Year Tutors and the Director of Student Engagement and Progression.
Querying Assessment Marks
University regulations state that you may not query a mark awarded on a piece of assessed work, including an examination, on the basis of academic judgement. We will reject any requests by you to have your work reviewed on the basis that you disagree with the marker’s evaluation of your performance, whether it is based on the mark or the feedback. You are entitled to approach the module leader or lecturer to discuss your performance in the assessment, but please note what you must do prior to this, as outlined in the previous sectionLink opens in a new window. However, you are not permitted to ask your lecturer or tutor to re-read your work or comment on the mark/feedback and certainly not to lobby for a re-mark.
If you believe that the marks for a piece of coursework (not an exam) in a module run by the Department of Economics have been totalled incorrectly, you are permitted to request an arithmetic check on the paper. We have the right, after such an arithmetic check, to adjust the mark upwards or downwards.
Should you wish to request an arithmetic check of your marks for an assessment (not an exam), please complete an Assessed Work Mark Check form, which is available from the useful forms section. You should email it, together with the marked copy of the assessed work in question, to the UG Office within seven working days of the date the marked assessment was made available for you to view. We will then carry out a check of the marks. If no discrepancy is found, you will be advised of this. You will be advised that there is no right to a further check or questioning of marks. Should a discrepancy be discovered, we will calculate the correct mark for the work and adjust this on our systems. You will then be contacted and emailed with a copy of your assessed work with the corrected mark annotated on it.
What is academic integrity?
Academic integrity means committing to honesty in academic work, giving credit where we've used others' ideas and being proud of our own achievements
The Department follows the Academic Integrity FrameworkLink opens in a new window approved by the University. Students should ensure they are familiar with this, and with Regulation 11Link opens in a new window, which governs academic integrity.
A breach of academic integrity is called 'academic misconduct'. This term can include deliberate cheating, which Warwick's regulations define as 'an attempt to benefit oneself or another, by deceit or fraud... [including] reproducing one's own work or the work of others without proper acknowledgement'. However, a breach of academic integrity can occur inadvertently, for example due to being in a rush to complete an assignment, or by not checking what’s expected.
- Plagiarism. Presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own;
- Self-plagiarism. Submitting the same work that you have already submitted for another assessment, unless this is permitted;
- Taking a copy of another student’s work without their permission;
- Passing someone your work to use as they see fit.
- Collusion. Working with one or more other people on an assessment which is intended to be your own work;
- Contract cheating. Where someone completes work for you, whether for remuneration or not, which is then submitted as your own (including use of essay mills or buying work online);
Arranging for someone else to impersonate you by undertaking your assessment or examination, in person or otherwise;
- Accessing, or attempting to access, unseen assessment materials in advance of an in-person or online examination, or to obtain or share unseen materials in advance of an in-person or online examination, or to facilitate such activities;
Submitting fraudulent mitigating circumstances claims or falsifying evidence in support of mitigating circumstances claims (this may also be considered a non-academic disciplinary matter);
- Fabrication or falsification of research, including falsifying data, evidence or experimental results;
- Presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own.
What is plagiarism?
It is important for you to avoid the suspicion of plagiarism in your assessed work. It is not plagiarism to cite without attribution ideas and theories that have passed into the public domain. The more widely you read and research your coursework, the quicker and better you will know what is and is not in the public domain, and the more safely you will be able to determine what can go without a supporting reference. You should ensure that you complete the tutorial developed by the Library on Avoiding PlagiarismLink opens in a new window and the Department's module on plagiarism in the Year 1 Personal Development ModuleLink opens in a new window. You may also access a brief video on plagiarismLink opens in a new window prepared by the Department.
The best way is to ensure that you adhere to good practice, represented by the rules for references and citations. Usually this means that when you first take notes from a book or article you should be careful to preserve the details of author, title, date, and page numbers. Such precision is an important transferable skill in itself, and shows that you are acquiring a professional approach.
Students who lack confidence in writing sometimes prefer copying or quoting from the textbook to expressing ideas in their own words. Why should they use their own words when somebody else’s words are better? Such students do not intend to cheat. They escape serious consequences by scattering quotation marks and references, sometimes, in large quantities. The marker is uneasy because it is not clear that the student has done more than a bit of intelligent cutting and pasting. It is impossible to be sure that the student has an independent understanding of the topic. Such work may pass, but will not get a good mark.
Copying or paraphrasing lecture notes or online sources, even with quotation marks and citations, is something we would especially discourage. When you copy from a published source at least you have the security of knowing that the work that you are copying has been scrutinised by referees (of academic journals) and reviewers (of books). Lecture notes are not subject to independent scrutiny and have no such guarantees of quality. Notes provided by lecturers, or eventually online sources, should be only a starting point of your research, not your finishing point. Again, work based on lecture notes and/or online sources will not get a good mark.
Some other tips for avoiding plagiarism are:
- Identify which key sources you may need to read and reference in good time before you start your assessment
- Always be honest in your bibliography or literature review – it’s often the first place markers look when they start reading your assignment. It will also help you identify gaps in your own preparation if you only include sources you have genuinely consulted.
- Read widely, and consult scholars who disagree with each other on theories or ideas and decide where you stand on the topic in question; just be sure to demonstrate how the existing literature has informed your writing, even if you come to your own conclusions
- Don’t be afraid to use your own words – you’ll learn more, find your own voice as a writer, and your work will be more interesting to read. Just make sure you reference each theory and concept as well as each quotation, and be careful not to paraphrase or to stitch others’ ideas together as your own.
- Organise and structure your work in your own way, this will help you develop your thinking and research on the subject and avoid inadvertently replicating others’ lines of argument or discussion
It is important that you, no matter what your background is, familiarise yourself with the approaches used at Warwick. The fact that you may not have written essays before coming to this University is not an acceptable excuse. You must take the initiative to ensure you have all the skills needed to produce good work as it is expected here, and the referencing and plagiarism tutorial that forms part of the PDM will help with this. Bear in mind that there will be slight differences between what departments require so do not assume that the approach will be exactly the same if you are taking a module in another department.
There are numerous online resources to help you grasp proper academic referencing including the LibraryLink opens in a new window, The Centre for Student Careers & SkillsLink opens in a new window and Global PADLink opens in a new window. We have a dedicated Economics Librarian coming to the Department regularly.
If you are ever in doubt about referencing and avoiding plagiarism speak to your module tutor or your Personal Tutor before you submit your piece of work.
When to acknowledge sources
- when you quote directly using other people’s words. Text taken directly from someone else must always be in quotation marks. You are strongly advised to avoid this practice, which, if done repeatedly demonstrates only copy-paste skills. Use your own words to show knowledge and understanding of the material
- when you paraphrase the ideas, arguments or theories of others, including lecture material in your own words
- when you use evidence from the work of others to support your own arguments
- when you rework published data or use it as the basis of your own calculations
- when you include charts, tables and diagrams produced by other people. If the source you have taken the material from has copied it from someone else, you must reference both the original author and the source you have used yourself
- when you reuse material that comes from work you have previously submitted for assessment whether at Warwick or elsewhere
In each of these cases you need to incorporate a specific citation into the text or tables of your coursework. You must also include the source in your bibliography, but it’s not enough just to include the source in a bibliography or list of references at the end.
Any textbooks you do use should be included as a reference in your bibliography at the end of your coursework. However, you do not need to give references for ideas and theories which have passed into the public domain and appear in any number of textbooks: for example “Economic theory suggests that demand curves for normal goods are negatively sloped.” The same logic means that you can refer to a vacuum cleaner as a hoover, even if it is made by Panasonic or Miele, because the Hoover Corporation failed to register its name as a trademark before it entered the public domain.
Further guidance is provided in the Moodle course Introduction to Referencing.
How to acknowledge sources
There are many possible forms of citation. The one we favour takes the form of abbreviated references in the text (rather than footnotes or endnotes) coupled with a list of references with full detail at the end. Each text reference is limited to the author's last name, date of publication and page reference. Some examples:
(1) According to Howlett (1994, p. 3), the need for rapid mobilisation is a crucial reason why market institutions may not sufficiently adjust the allocation of resources to wartime priorities.
(2) The original application of rational expectations to macroeconomics is usually attributed to Lucas (1972).
(3) One theory argues the first industrial revolution occurred in Britain due to a unique combination of factor prices (Allen 2009).
Avoid the use of footnotes to add extra comments and asides. If what you need to say matters it should go in the main text. If it doesn’t belong in the text, leave it out. If you are required to or choose to use footnotes as the means of referencing, you should include the full reference in the footnote, as well as in the bibliography.
Creating a bibliography
Complete references belong at the end of the essay. These should contain precisely those articles and books that you cite in the text, no more and no less. In particular, markers will be alert to you including references to sources that you have not used and have only listed to make your bibliography appear larger.
Your references might comprise books, chapters and journal articles, alphanumerically by author's last name and publication date, with the book title or journal title underlined or in italics, and article or chapter titles in quotation marks. The principle here is that it’s the library catalogue entry that gets italicised or underlined. Place of publication and publisher are optional for University coursework though not if you aspire to publishable scholarship. Note that if
you cite articles or chapters you should also give first and last page numbers. For the above examples:
Howlett, W.P. (1994). “The Wartime Economy, 1939-1945.” In Floud, R., and McCloskey, D., eds, The Economic History of Britain Since 1700. 2nd edn, vol. 3, 1-31.
Lucas, R.E. (1972). “Expectations and the Neutrality of Money.” Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 4, 103-24.
Allen, R. The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
For further guidance on reference style, consult a well-known economics journal such as the Economic Journal.
Common pitfalls in academic referencing
Citations and references can be misused. Here are some points on which to take care.
- An essay is an exercise in writing, not in using other people’s words. This means that, unless something is extremely effective, you should not quote. You can summarise the thoughts of others, but make sure that the writing is your own style. We want to know what you think.
- Do not use citations as a substitute for argument. What gives your argument authority is logic and evidence, not the number of scholars you can find who agree with you, so don't pad the bibliography with material you haven't used. It will not impress the marker. The marker does want to know that you have read widely, but to read widely without understanding benefits no one. Using large quantities of references can sometimes actually signal to the marker that you do not really grasp the topic in detail. Use references selectively as proof of your good faith as a scholar, not to batter down disagreement or bury points of difficulty.
- Only cite what you yourself have used. For example, you may read something that itself refers to another source. Thus Gordon (1998), Macroeconomics, p. 490, discussing excess volatility in aggregate consumption, refers to an article by Marjorie Flavin (1981) in the Journal of Political Economy.
Suppose the point matters to your essay. Whom do you cite: Flavin or Gordon? If you cite only Flavin it makes you look good: here’s a student who seems to have gone into the subject in depth. But you run the risk of making an inappropriate citation: you have to trust Gordon; was his purpose in making the citation really the same as yours? The correct form is “Flavin (1981), cited by Gordon (1998, p. 490)”. That makes Gordon, not you, responsible should the citation prove incorrect or inappropriate. Better still, if the point really matters, go to the original reference and read it yourself. Then you can cite it confidently without risk of being caught out.
It is particularly important to note when a table, chart or diagram has been reused by someone you are citing. You must include reference to the source you used but also show that the author themselves took the material from someone else.
Academic misconduct or poor practice?
Warwick distinguishes between academic misconduct and poor academic practice. Academic misconduct is defined as follows:
Academic misconduct are acts or omissions by a student which give or have the potential to give an unfair advantage in an examination or assessment, or might assist someone else to gain an unfair advantage, or an activity likely to undermine the integrity essential to scholarship and research. (Regulation 11)
Academic misconduct requires the intention to obtain an unfair advantage, or knowingly engaging in a behaviour that has the potential to give an unfair advantage, irrespective of whether such advantage is actually obtained. (Regulation 11)
Poor academic practice is less serious than academic misconduct, but should be avoided nonetheless:
Poor academic practice is the failure to observe principles of academic integrity. It typically (but not exclusively) occurs when referencing is inadequate, but not in a way suggesting that the student attempted to gain an unfair advantage. (Regulation 11)
Poor academic practice should be used where the extent of plagiarism or other misconduct is limited. It can be used in particular at earlier stages of a student’s degree, when they might only have an imperfect understanding of the principles of academic integrity. It can be found, e.g., where a student has referenced the material used but not indicated that it is a verbatim quote. (Guidance on Regulation 11)
There is no penalty for poor academic practice: marks are not deducted, instead work is assessed under the marking criteria (e.g., the University Marking Scales have an implicit expectation in respect of good academic practice). (Regulation 11)
Should poor academic practice be identified in your work, the Department will provide you with resources to help you to improve on your academic practice skills. Please also see the section on Academic Referencing in this Handbook.
Student collaboration and academic integrity
Discussing your work with your colleagues can be a positive and fruitful learning experience. Often it is enhanced by showing your colleagues what you have done. However, there is no good reason for another student to ask to borrow a file on which your essay, project work , test or exam scripts are recorded. If your work is copied by another student, and the copying is detected, you lay yourself open to accusations of abetting or colluding with their academic misconduct, or even of engaging in academic misconduct yourself. The same will occur if you do not use the material yourself but pass it on to a third person, because without your involvement the academic misconduct would not have been able to take place.
Collaboration, or working cooperatively with other students, is an excellent way of acquiring knowledge. Teamwork enables you to cover material more quickly and more efficiently. Having to explain things to others clarifies them and fixes them in your mind and can be an important part of your learning experience. But collaboration can give rise to concerns. Sometimes students fear that collaboration may lead to accusations of plagiarism, in the sense of passing off others’ work as your own.
We think there is a clear distinction between the cooperative acquisition of knowledge and the copying of another’s work and submitting it as your own. You may discuss an assignment with classmates, but you should always use your own words when working on an individually submitted piece of work. Your module tutor may supply you with further guidance. If you find yourself in a situation where cooperation with another student has become so close that you find yourselves working towards a joint result, discuss it with your tutor before submitting your work.
Collaboration during University exams and tests, whether online or in-person, is strictly forbidden. You should not engage in any contact of any kind with third-parties, including other students, while you are undertaking a University exam or test or even after you have finished it, but while the test or exam window is still open and hence other students may still be taking the test/exam. This includes, but is not limited to: telephone conversations, instant messaging, text messaging, group messaging and email messages. Making contact with others to discuss a University exam or test at the time you or they are undertaking that exam/test is a form of academic misconduct. You should also not share your previous exam/test scripts with other students, or use exam/test scripts obtained from other students in your assessed or examined work.
How we investigate suspected breaches of academic integrity
Here is a summary of our Departmental academic integrity procedure:
- Where a marker decides that they suspect academic misconduct in a piece of assessed work, they will report it to the module leader and an initial discussion will take place between the marker and the module leader. Where academic misconduct is suspected in an in-person, or online, examination, the Invigilator will raise their concerns with the student and inform them that a report of suspected academic misconduct will be made to the Head of the Department.
- Should the module leader (in the case of a piece of assessed work) or Head of Department (in the case of an examination) confirm that there is a suspicion of academic misconduct, they will refer the case to Academic Integrity Lead for Economics who will determine whether the case should be investigated. Should the module leader or Head of Department determine that the student's work is showing poor academic practice but not academic misconduct, they will refer back to the marker or module leader for the work to be marked and to provide the student with guidance and advice on how to improve their academic practice.
- Should academic misconduct be suspected, an Academic Conduct Panel (ACP) will be convened in Economics, which comprises one of the Assessment, Feedback and Academic Integrity team as Chair, plus at least one other member of academic staff, and the Assistant Programmes Manager (for an external students taking an economics module there should also be a colleague from the home Department). The student will be invited to attend this Panel, along with a student-nominated representative for support, if desired, and/or to submit a statement. The Panel will consider the evidence gathered, including the student's written statement and/or verbal statement.
- The ACP will consider whether the case constitutes: (i) poor academic practice, (ii) academic misconduct or (iii) neither academic misconduct or poor academic practice.
- In the case of (i), guidance will be provided by the Module Leader to the student to help them improve on their academic practice and referencing.
- In the case of (ii), the ACP will make a report (including any additional evidence or statements) and a recommendation as to the appropriate sanction to the Head of Department (or their Deputy). The Head of Department will review all of the evidence and agree with the recommendation or make their own determination, which may include referral to the Academic Registrar.
- The student will be written to and informed of the outcome and any applicable sanction, they will be provided with a copy of the report.
- The student may either accept the sanction or may request, within ten University Working Days of being informed by the Head of Department of the sanction, that the case be referred to the Academic Registrar to be considered by a University-level Academic Integrity Committee (AIC).
- If on point (6) the Head of Department decides to refer the case upwards, it will be heard by an University-level AIC.
- The AIC will decide whether there is a case to be heard, and if so, a meeting will be convened, to which the student and their chosen representative will be invited.
- The student will receive the decision of the AIC in writing after the meeting;
- The student has the right of appeal against either the decision of the AIC or the sanction applied.
Please note that the level of proof required for suspected academic misconduct to be found proven or not proven is the civil standard ‘the balance of probabilities’, that is, on the basis of the available evidence it is more likely than not that the student committed academic misconduct.
Consequences of breaches of academic integrity
Breaches of academic integrity are damaging. They damage the perpetrator, who does not learn how to be an economist, but learns how to be dishonest. It damages relations between tutors and students, because it generates suspicion. It damages all students when they leave, because the perpetrator will eventually devalue the reputation of a Warwick degree. It damages all academic staff, who have to spend time policing the rules in place of teaching and research.
Breaches of academic integrity are regularly detected and penalised and the penalties are severe. The policies are strict even if it’s the first time your work has not met standards of academic integrity: here are some of the possible consequences:
The University makes the following sanctions available to an Academic Conduct Panel:
- A reduction in mark for the assessed work to reflect the impact of the academic misconduct. The mark may be reduced down to zero;
- Require re-submission of the original work with revised referencing, for a capped mark;
- Require re-submission of a new piece of work for a reduced or capped mark.
In addition to those above, an Academic Integrity Committee may impose the following sanctions:
- Determine that the student’s previous work, for which credits had already been accumulated, is to be investigated for academic misconduct by the student’s home department;
- Recommend to the Academic Registrar that the student be withdrawn from the University, either for a temporary period or permanently under Regulation 36;
- Determine that a student shall have no right to resubmit, or remedy failure with respect to, the piece or pieces of work in respect of which the case was referred to the AIC.
Academic integrity advice and support
The University provides comprehensive guidance on academic integrity and links to resources on the Academic Integrity website.Link opens in a new window
If you have any questions on this, you should seek advice in good time from either the module leader, your module tutor, or your Personal Tutor. For advice on the Department's Academic Integrity Procedure, please refer to the Assistant Programmes Manager on firstname.lastname@example.orgLink opens in a new window. There is also a a department Academic Integrity pageLink opens in a new window, where you will find further information and guidance.
A significant proportion of your assessment will be in the form of University examinations. In 2022/23 we are planning for mainly online exams, but with set start times, as the majority of students will be based in the UK, but there may be some in person exams.
For on campus exams, you are required to bring your student ID card and place it on your desk, so that your identity can be checked during the examination. You should avoid bringing a bag with you to the examination room, as you will not be permitted to bring it into the exam with you. The use of PDAs or mobile phones, or any other hand-held devices that facilitate wireless communication is not permissible in examination conditions. If you are found to have an electronic device in an examination or test, even if it is switched off and hasn't been used, the penalty will normally be a mark of 0% on that examination and can be even more severe.
Whether you have an online or an in person exam, the exams will be timetabled and will start at set times. The exam timetable is normally published towards the end of the Easter vacation or at the start of the summer term.
Many First, Second and Final Year Economics modules are assessed under a 'standard scheme' which combines an unseen examination contributing 80% of the credit for the module, with other pieces of assessed coursework contributing 20%. The number of pieces of coursework can vary from one module to another; this is indicated in the module descriptions. Some non-standard schemes apply, and you are advised to check the individual module webpages for the definitive information.
In some departments where modules are assessed by a combination of coursework and examination, examiners prohibit you from answering exam questions that overlap with coursework previously submitted. This is not the case in Economics.
In all EC-coded examination papers, you may answer any question subject to the restrictions (rubric) written on the question paper itself, regardless of the assessed work you have submitted. Modules offered by other departments have their own examination methods. It is your responsibility to familiarise yourself with these, particularly regarding their rules and procedures for assessed work.
In principle, all materials outlined in the module overview document, content presented in lectures and Support and Feedback Classes, and content within further readings, are examinable. The module syllabus, as given on the module webpage, also indicates what is examinable. We do not specify what topics are to be included in or excluded from an examination paper, as is standard practice in the Department and University.
All end-of-year exams that are online will take place on a University platform. Further clarification will be provided closer to the Summer exam period starting in May.
Examination dates and timetable
For undergraduate students, there are two examination periods, with the main exams being held in May/June and resit exams held in September. For more information on the exam periods, please see the Examinations Office websiteLink opens in a new window. Please note that undergraduate exams are scheduled centrally by the Examinations Office and, as such, the Department has no control over which exams are held on which day.
It is your responsibility to check the date and time of your exams and ensure you log on to the University's exams platform at the correct time. Exams usually start at a set time (either 9.30am GMT/BST or 2pm GMT/BST) and have to be completed by a set time. You must start your exam at the time stated. If you start after this time, you will be deemed to have started late and you will not receive the full duration of your exam. If you miss an exam, you are not permitted to sit at a later time and you will be marked as absent.
Special arrangements for exams
If you have a properly-documented and approved need for special arrangements for your examinations (e.g. you are allowed extra time to compensate for a condition) then these arrangements can be made. If your condition will last more than 12 months, typically evidence will be provided by Disability Services. But you do still need to notify us when asked to do so - otherwise late requests may not be granted. If you have a serious condition which will affect you sitting an exam but it will last less than 12 months, you will need to send medical evidence from a doctor or hospital to the UG Office. If it is in a language other than English then an official translation is required. You must contact Disability Services by the end of the spring term to register for special arrangements. Please check the Academic Office websiteLink opens in a new window for specific dates.
Please contact the UG Office with the details of any special arrangement requests.
Good practice in online exams
To maximise your chances of success in an online examination, there are a number of things that you must do:
- Familiarise yourself with the instructions on the University's platform for each of your examinations and ensure that you follow them when completing your exam paper.
- Answer the correct number of questions. If you answer more than the required number the department will mark the questions in the order that they appear, up to the required number of questions in each section.
- Fill in the question numbers on the required page.
- Ensure you only upload the required number of documents and in the correct format.
- You can upload your work during the exam, so you have a record of your work and we recommend that you do so.
- Check the last file that you upload to ensure that it is the version you want marked - if you upload an incorrect version we will only mark that one. If you upload a blank or corrupt file you will receive a mark of zero. It is your responsibility to check that you have uploaded the correct document to the correct module.
- Try to ensure that your file size does not exceed 10MB.
- Ensure that any images you insert have been compressed (following the department's guidanceLink opens in a new window), and are visible on the paper, images that cannot be seen clearly or are cropped might not be marked.
Other pointers for good practice in examinations, include:
- familiarising yourself with University's Examination Regulations 10.2Link opens in a new window
- familiarising yourself with the rubric beforehand and doing what the rubric asks (the rubric for each module can be found on the module webpage - it is better to use this source for accurate exam rubrics rather than using past papers, as these may be out of date)
- showing your working in mathematical/quantitative answers - enough to be awarded method marks if you get the wrong answer. In any case full marks ought not to be awarded for correct 'bottom line' answers - we are also interested in checking reasoning and understanding
- Other advice on how to tackle exams is available on the following websites:
Exam boards, progression and resits
Exam Boards in each of the three years fulfil different roles. The Final Year Exam Board is the most important, in the sense that as long as you pass and proceed through the earlier boards (and most students do!) then it is only in this final board that your degree class is determined. First and second year exam boards do not provide classifications to students, as the only decision being made is whether or not a student can progress to the next year.
Examination boards are obliged to adhere to Examination Regulations.
The examination regulations are designed to establish quality standards for all Warwick degrees and to ensure equity of treatment across all candidates.
Right to Remedy Failure
The right to remedy failure allows students the opportunity to resit failed modules, but this is only available to individuals starting their degree course in 2021/22 or after.
You will be offered the opportunity to resit a failed module in the next exam period for a capped mark of 40%. All attempts that are resits will be by 100% examination. More information can be found hereLink opens in a new window. First and second year students are required to pass all core modules, so if you fail a core module, you are required to resit these exams before you can proceed onto the next year of your degree programme, but have you have the right to resit failed optional modules, but this is not required if you have already might the progression conditions for your degree. This is not the case for students in their final year.
The First Year Board of Examiners
The first year of all single and joint honours degree courses in Economics (except for GL11) is a qualifying year. If you fail to progress to the second year at the first attempt in June you have the right to make one further attempt, which normally involves a resit exam in early September.
Results are considered by the Board of Examiners for Economics and ratified by the University. This Board usually sits in the first week of the summer vacation. Please note that all marks are provisional and may be raised or lowered by the exam board.
The criteria for proceeding are as follows: First year students need to pass 90 credits (including core modules) with an overall average mark of 40% over a minimum of 132 credits (for L100, LM1D, or 129 credits for L116) to proceed to second year of your degree program. Note also that at the June examination board, a candidate who is not permitted to proceed, but has achieved an average of at least 40%, will be required to resit all failed required core modules for a capped mark of 40% (where the module mark is based 100% on the examination or in the case of EC138, on the final project). Students will also have the right to remedy failure in other modules which are not passed.
You will find full conventions on the examinations website. The Board meets after the June examinations. At this time, the decisions available for each candidate on an Honours degree and taking first year exams for the first time are normally for the candidate:
- to proceed to the second year
- to resit exams in failed modules, normally in September.
If you have failed the criteria for proceeding to the second year, you will be given the chance to resit your exams only once. Marks are capped at 40% (this is the maximum mark you can obtain) and only the exam (or final project) will be taken into consideration (not assessments). The First Year Board of Examiners may recommend that you withdraw from the University, but you still have the right to resit. Secretaries to First Year Boards of Examiners will inform you of the modules that you are required to resit and what you have the option to resit and when the resits are (normally September). If you fail to meet the progression criteria after your resits, you will normally be asked to withdraw from the University. Under defined circumstances you have the right to appeal against this decision. More information on the appeals process can be found online (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/academicoffice/examinations/students/appeals)
There is a second meeting of the Board after the September examinations. At this time, the decisions available to the Board, for each candidate on an Honours degree and resitting first year exams, are normally for the candidate:
- to proceed to the second year
- to be required to withdraw. In this case, you may be considered for an Exit Award and receive a Diploma of Higher Education.
Medical and other documented information affecting performance is noted in June, but will usually affect decisions only at the September Board. This is because any student who is unable to take the examination on a required core module in June through illness, is offered the chance to sit that exam as a first attempt (i.e. retaining the right to resit in the event of failure) in September.
It is very important that you submit documentary support for any mitigating circumstances affecting your performance via the personal circumstances tab on tabula. All mitigating evidence related to exams should be submitted no later than five working days following the affected exam. All other mitigating circumstances claims must be submitted as soon as possible and no later than 1st June 2023. Evidence that is not provided in a timely manner and with no justification for the delay will not be considered by the Exam Board. Further information can be found in the Mitigating Circumstances SectionLink opens in a new window of the Handbook.
The Second Year Board of Examiners
The Second Year Board of Examiners comprises a subset of full-time members of the academic staff in the Department of Economics. It makes recommendations that are subject to confirmation by the Senate.
The Second Year Board does not classify candidates. Its only purpose is to consider whether and how candidates should proceed to the final year. In order to proceed to the final year, students must pass 90 CATS of core modules and obtain an overall average of 40%. The Board usually meets in the second week of the summer vacation. Please note that all marks are provisional and will only be confirmed at the final year exam board. The decisions available to it are normally for each candidate:
- to proceed to the final year of an Honours degree course
- to resit failed modules in the next exam period (where the module mark is based 100% on the examination) - marks capped at 40%.*
- to proceed to a pass degree
- to be required to withdraw. In this case, you may be considered for an Exit Award and receive a Diploma or Certificate of Higher Education.
*If a student sits exams in September and fails to pass 90 credits of modules and if the average is below 40%, students are permitted to resit failed modules 'without residence' which means that they do not attend the University but return the following June to resit specified examinations.
In case of illness or other very special circumstances, a first attempt may be declared null and void and a subsequent first sit allowed. The University publishes rules on progression Link opens in a new windowfor intermediate year students.
Medical and other documentary evidence potentially affecting performance is noted by the Second Year Board and carried forward to the Final Year Board. It is not normally considered by the Second Year Board in any detail, unless special circumstances make it relevant to the Board's progression decision. It is very important that you submit documentary support for any mitigating circumstances affecting your performance via the personal circumstances tab on tabula. All mitigating evidence related to exams should be submitted no later than five working days following the affected exam. All other mitigating circumstances claims must be submitted as soon as possible and no later than 7th June 2023. Evidence that is not provided in a timely manner and with no justification for the delay will not be considered by the Exam Board. Further information can be found in the Mitigating Circumstances SectionLink opens in a new window of the Handbook.
The Final Year Board of Examiners
The Final Year Board comprises a subset of full-time members of the academic staff in the Department of Economics, together with external examiners appointed by the Senate. It makes recommendations that are subject to confirmation by the Senate.
The external examiners are experienced senior academics from other universities whose role is to monitor our standards, to advise us on issues including borderline cases, and generally to act as independent arbiters and scrutineers.
Please note that all previous marks remain provisional and are only confirmed by this final year exam board. The Board usually meets in the last week of the Summer term and considers the results of each candidate's second- and final-year modules. The decisions available to it are normally for each candidate:
- to be awarded an Honours degree of First, Upper Second, Lower Second or Third class (there is a borderline zone for each class and there are various criteria in place which determine whether a student be promoted to the higher degree class). Details of this are available in section III of this linkLink opens in a new window.
- to be awarded a Pass degree
- to resit specified failed modules at the next exam period, in order to be awarded a Pass degree
- to fail. In this case, students may be eligible for an Exit Award, either via a Certificate of Higher Education or a Diploma of Higher Education.
The Examination Board works with a set of conventions that determine your degree class in a consistent and fair way. The conventions are based partly on the average mark across all modules and partly on the profile of marks across modules. The conventions are harmonised for use in all degree courses within each Faculty and are available online.
All undergraduates currently studying in the Department will be graduated under the 'harmonised' conventions. Degree classification is related not only to your overall average over your modules, but also to the profile of marks. There are no limits on the numbers of candidates who can obtain a particular degree classification.
Exam conventions have a language of their own. Read them carefully. Most of your questions will be answered by the fine print.
Medical and other documentary evidence potentially affecting performance across your Second and Third Years is considered by the Final Year Board. It is very important that you complete the personal circumstances tab on Tabula. All mitigating evidence related to exams should be submitted no later than five working days following the affected exam. All other mitigating circumstances claims must be submitted as soon as possible and no later than 25th May 2023. Evidence that is not provided in a timely manner and with no justification for the delay will not be considered by the Exam Board. Further information can be found in the Mitigating Circumstances SectionLink opens in a new window of the Handbook.
You may also wish to read guidance on the marking scales used in the University.
If you fail a module you will not normally be allowed to resit it. In case of illness or other very special circumstances a first attempt may be declared null and void and a subsequent first sit allowed. If you fail your degree overall, you will normally be permitted to resit failed exams the following summer, without residence (which means without attending at the University), in a final attempt to obtain a pass degree (an honours degree is no longer possible).
Please see the Senate Examination and Degree Regulations on Pass degrees for more information.
The Safety Net
For students entering their final year in 2022/23 who completed their year 2 in 2019/20, the Safety Net measures that were put in place by the University due to the pandemic will apply to you and this will be taken into account at the Final year Exam Board. You can find more details about the Safety Net that was applied in your second year and how it will be used at the following website: The graduation benchmark for intermediate year studentsLink opens in a new window.
Detailed guidance on how to submit a case for mitigating circumstances and the evidence required to substantiate a case is available hereLink opens in a new window.
Mitigating circumstances are defined as:
- Situations that the student could not have predicted and had no control over (e.g. serious illness, death of someone close, being the victim of crime, family difficulties and financial hardship);
- Situations with negative impact on the student’s ability to undertake assessments/examinations which are independently evidenced in a timely fashion; (e.g. doctor’s note during illness showing duration and level of negative impact);
- Situations that are acute or short term, the timing of which are relevant to the impact on study (normally within three weeks of the relevant assessment event deadline).
Mitigating Circumstances must be submitted to the Department using the personal circumstances portal in Tabula.
Where you are applying for an extension to a coursework deadline because of mitigating circumstances, you must apply as soon as possible and ideally before the submission deadline. All mitigating evidence related to exams should be submitted no later than five working days following the affected exam. All other mitigating circumstances claims must be submitted as soon as possible and no later than 1st June 2023 for first year students, 7th June for second year students and 25th May 2023.
The University expects that all mitigating evidence is brought to the Department’s attention in a timely manner, despite the discomfort you might feel in so doing. The Department will do all it can to support you in difficult situations. You should be aware that mitigating circumstances not submitted by the relevant deadline cannot be considered by the Department and may only be considered by an Academic Appeals Committee as part of an academic appealLink opens in a new window and then will only be considered if there is detailed and convincing explanation for why the evidence was not supplied in a timely manner.
Evidence is a vital part of a mitigating circumstances submission. It must written by an independent qualified practitioner (letters from relatives are not acceptable); dated and written on headed or official notepaper and in English. If the letter is in another language students must provide both a copy of the original note and a certified translation into English. When requesting medical evidence to support your application for mitigation, you are advised to make clear to your doctor that the information will be shared with a number of people and to discuss with your doctor the most appropriate wording of the medical evidence.
Who to talk to
In order for your circumstances to be considered as mitigating by the Department, they must be conveyed formally to the Mitigating Circumstances Officer in the Department using the mitigating circumstances portal in Tabula. For UG students the Mitigating Circumstances Officer is the Student Wellbeing and Progression Officer.
We are aware that in some cultures it is considered shameful or embarrassing to disclose the details of these kinds of circumstance to those outside one’s family. This is not the case in the prevailing UK culture and you should be aware that the Department and the University are fully supportive of students in difficult circumstances and want to assist if at all possible. If you feel inhibited from talking to a Personal Tutor, Senior Tutor or Student Wellbeing and Progression Officer, you may also consider talking to a member of the SSLC, the Students’ Union, the Dean of Students or a member of staff in Student Support for initial, informal advice. Be assured that we treat all information in a confidential manner and our electronic filing system is secure. If you believe that your mitigating circumstances submission contains sensitive personal information and/or highly confidential evidence, you may submit your mitigating circumstances marked “strictly confidential and for the attention of the Chair of the mitigating circumstances panel only”.
Exams are a stressful time for all students and hence you should expect to feel some degree of anxiety during the exam period. When taking an exam, it is not uncommon for students to feel a rising level of anxiety and to think that it is a panic attack. A panic attack during an exam will not be taken as a severe mitigating circumstance, unless:
- the Department already has evidence to confirm that you have a history of similar anxiety and panic attacks and can provide medical evidence of this panic attack.
- significant medical evidence can be provided that documents the symptoms of the panic attack during the exam and confirms that you would have been unable to complete the exam under the circumstances.
Mitigating Circumstances Panel
The Mitigating Circumstances Panel is Chaired by the Director of Undergraduate Studies and membership includes the Senior Tutor, the Deputy Director of Undergraduate Studies, the Deputy Director of Undergraduate Studies (Assessments), the Year Tutor, the Student Wellbeing and Progression Officer and an Programme Administrator. The panel has the following remit:
- To consider details of applications for mitigating circumstances and make recommendations on the outcome of each application to the Board of Examiners.
- To determine whether the circumstances submitted are acceptable grounds to grant mitigation and to grade them as rejected (R), mild (A), moderate (B) or severe (C).
- To ensure that decisions are equitable and that there is consistency of treatment across cohorts.
Acute mitigation (e.g. for assessed work extension requests)
The Student Wellbeing and Progression Officer will review the mitigating circumstances in confidence and decide whether an extension or late submission penalty waiver is appropriate. A decision will normally be communicated to you within three working days. Detailed guidance on extension requests can be found hereLink opens in a new window.
Deferral of an Examination Period
If you have severe circumstances which mean that you will be unable to take assessments such as examinations during an official University examination period (e.g. January, June, Sept Examination period) you may request to defer the entire examinations period to the next available opportunity (for Undergraduates normally the September resit period).
Deferral of an examination period is governed by the University’s Deferral of Examination PolicyLink opens in a new window which was implemented for all undergraduate students from April 2020.
Students who need to apply for deferral will need to submit a mitigating circumstances application on tabula and discuss it with the senior tutor. Applications should be submitted at least five working days before the beginning of the exam period (i.e. the first exam in the exam period). Applications submitted within the five working days before the exam period may not be considered given any time constraints. Please refer to the policy to check if you are eligible for a deferral.
Possible action by the Exam Board
For severe mitigating circumstances the Exam Board might recommend the candidate sits examinations (as for the first time) in September or the following May/June or offer a further opportunity for re-examination. In the case of the Second Year Exam Board, it may be recommended that no action is required in terms of progress decisions, but the circumstances will be carried forward and be considered when determining the degree classification at a future meeting of the Board of Examiners. Please note that the Exam Board will not change any marks, whether module or average marks for any student, even if there are mitigating circumstances. The role of the Exam Board is to determine progression and Degree Class.
If you sit an exam or test, you are declaring yourself fit to sit and cannot retrospectively submit evidence of a mitigating circumstance.
Long term chronic conditions (normally greater than a term in duration and that are likely to continue) and disabilities are dealt with under the reasonable adjustmentsLink opens in a new window (RAs) policy. However a significant deterioration of a permanent or chronic condition already reported and covered by reasonable adjustments, is classed as a mitigating circumstance. Guidance in relation to reasonable adjustments is available on the University web pages and is summarised below.
The Equality Act 2010Link opens in a new window requires the University to make reasonable adjustments where a candidate who is disabled (within the meaning of the Act), would be at a SUBSTANTIAL DISADVANTAGE in comparison to someone who is not disabled.
- Noting ‘substantial’ is defined as ‘more than minor or trivial’ and that a disability is defined as ‘a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’.
- Students who have long term chronic conditions or disabilities and who believe they are entitled to reasonable adjustments should in the first instance contact Disability Services or Mental Health and Wellbeing and request an appointmentLink opens in a new window to discuss their support requirements.
- A reasonable adjustment may be unique to the individual and could include special examination arrangements, delayed deadlines but also alternative methods of assessments.
- Any reasonable adjustments made are evidence based; students are required to supply appropriate and recent medical evidence, or, in the case of a specific learning difference such as dyslexia or dyspraxia, a full diagnostic assessment. The type of appropriate evidence required can be discussed with Disability Services or Mental Health and Wellbeing.
- Once a student has met with Wellbeing Support Services, the adviser will contact the student's department and the Examinations Office (with their permission) to recommend any specific adjustments.
- Reasonable adjustment recommendations for examinations must be made before the annual deadlines as set out by the Examinations Office on the Disability ServicesLink opens in a new window website. Recommendations that are made AFTER these deadlines will be handled under the Mitigating Circumstances Policy.
- Recommendations to apply reasonable adjustments may include for the student to be able to complete assessments via alternative assessment methods; bearing in mind that academic or professional standards in relation to core competencies and assessed criteria still need to be met.
- Further information on disabilities and reasonable adjustments can also be accessed in the University’s Disability PolicyLink opens in a new window.
Although the Examination Boards follow standard guidelines, in exceptional circumstances, they can exercise discretion when awarding a particular class of degree to take into account relevant individual circumstances such as health. However, the Boards do not exercise discretion lightly or arbitrarily, nor do they alter marks. Exercising discretion may mean placing more weight than usual on some parts of your performance than others - for example, on the final year, if the second year was known to be affected by illness. However, even in such cases, the module and average marks are not changed. Please note that if both Honours years are affected by mitigating circumstances, there is little the Exam Board can do in terms of exercising its discretion, as the Exam Board does not have any information on academic performance in one of the Honours year that was unaffected by mitigating circumstances.
Any departure from guidelines is always based on properly documented evidence (usually a medical certificate or counsellor's report), and taking into account the need to treat all candidates consistently and fairly. Thus the Boards do not (and do not have the right to) waive rules or adjust marks without good reason. In particular, the Boards will not award a higher degree class just because of illness if there is insufficient evidence in your record to justify the higher class.
One or more external examiners (i.e. examiners of professorial or equivalent status from another university) must be present at the Final Year Board and must confirm its decisions. One of the most important functions of external examiners is to ensure that the Board's decisions are fair. External Examiners also contribute towards the upkeep of standards of marking by moderating a sample of student assessments.
The role of the External Examiner is to ensure that:
- degrees awarded are comparable in standard to those in similar degree courses in other universities in the United Kingdom
- the assessment system is fair and is fairly operated in the classification of students
- degrees awarded are at the appropriate level as set out in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (Chapter A1 of the UK Quality Code) and take appropriate account of the relevant Subject Benchmark Statement
- students achieve the learning outcomes for the degrees set out in the relevant Course Specifications.
External Examiners also write a report on their views of the quality and standards of the assessments and examinations conducted in the Department and on the administrative processes behind this. The Department considers these reports at the Undergraduate Management Committee, sends a formal response back to the External Examiner, and considers how to incorporate any suggestions made into Departmental provision.
For more information on the role of External Examiners, please see the website of the Quality Assurance Agency.
The Department of Economics awards several prizes throughout the three years for outstanding performances. Previous examples have included the Deutsche Bank Prize for the top performing first-year student in Economics and the Department Examiners’ Prize for the Best Performance in Research in Applied Economics. The current prizes awarded are the following:
- Oliver Hart prize for the best performing students in the first and second years.
- Peggy Ford Memorial Prize for final year students for outstanding performance in economic history .
- Rohin Modasia Prize — An enterprising approach to economics in application to the real-world business or public sector — i.e. a practical project or a practical application of the subject making a potential usable contribution towards the wider community (promoting sustainability, alleviating poverty etc).
- Departmental Examiners' Prize for final-year students for best performance in EC331 Research in Applied Economics and best performance in economics-based degrees (not EPAIS or PPE). The award winner(s) are chosen by the Final Year Board of Examiners and may share the prizes in some years.
- Shiv Nath Prize for final-year students for best performance in BSc or BA in Economics, Politics and International Studies.
- Outstanding Student Contribution Prize for students in all years for making an excellent contribution to the Department and/or University in some way, e.g. through the SSLC, working with our student experience team, volunteer work etc.
We want to assure you that the marking and moderation for all our examinations is fair, consistent, robust and reliable and hence give you confidence that when you receive a mark, the mark has been arrived at following a detailed and rigorous process. All examination scripts have a first marker and a moderator and undergo a further administrative check to ensure the marks have been totalled correctly. All results are considered by a Board of Examiners. Further details regarding the assessment procedures in the Department can be found on the Department's Assessment and Feedback webpages.
Following the decisions of the Exam Board all marks and decisions are passed onto the University and will be availabel to be viewed on Tabula.
Following the September examination period, you will be provided with feedback from the summer examinations:
- The exam paper for each of your modules;
- Summary statistics for each of your modules, showing the range of mark classifications for the exam paper ;
- A cumulative distribution function for the exam paper for each of your modules;
- Summary statistics per each exam question that you attempted for each of your modules,
- For all modules, and for the questions you attempted, the module leader’s comments per question on the areas on which the cohort generally did well and not so well.
- For all modules, the module leader’s comments on the kind of answers that may have scored highly in this exam paper, or other guidance on assessment criteria.
- Bottom line solutions to quantitative papers will also be provided as a further form of feedback.
All feedback will be provided after the September examination period so that no student is advantaged and the feedback will be available for a limited period of time. The feedback is there for you to reflect on your performance, but you are not permitted to discuss the feedback with any member of staff.
Please be aware that for modules with small numbers of registrations, data will be withheld in order not to breach anonymity, consequently we are not providing feedback on Special Syllabus papers, modules with less than ten students and the September exam papers.
If you are a student in the Economics Department or on one of our joint degrees, you will automatically be sent a copy of your exam script, if and only if you have failed a module and must resit it in order to progress to the next year. No other exam scripts will be made available to students. Class tutors and lecturers will not be able to provide further individual feedback or explanations and you will not be able to use the script to challenge marks. Please note that the moderation process may have had the effect that the final mark on your script does not coincide exactly with the marks given to each part.
While you may appeal against an exam board decision, there is no provision under the University guidelines for you to challenge the academic judgement of the examiners or to dispute the marks awarded in individual modules or pieces of work.
If you have any concerns or feedback about the examination process then please contact the Quality Assurance and Examinations Coordinator in the first instance: email@example.com.
The appeals process
First year and intermediate-year appeals
First-year and intermediate-year undergraduates have the right to appeal only against a decision that they be required to withdraw from their course of study, and then only if they are in possession of relevant evidence which was not available to the Board of Examiners when its decision was reached. You are required to complete a form if you wish to appeal and should consult the Student Administrative Services: Examinations webpagesLink opens in a new window. An appeal must be lodged in writing within 10 University working days of the publication of the exam result which is the subject of the appeal.
Final year appeals
Under certain defined circumstances, final-year undergraduate students may appeal against the award of a particular degree class or if they have not been awarded a qualification. You are required to complete a form if you wish to appeal and should consult the Student Administrative Services: Examinations webpagesLink opens in a new window. An appeal must be lodged in writing within 10 days of the publication of degree results.
- The appeal procedures may not be used to challenge the academic judgement of examiners nor to dispute marks awarded in individual modules or pieces of work.
- Further appeals information and forms can be found on the University Reg 42: Governing Academic AppealsLink opens in a new window