a. All summative assessment should be considered by two examiners except for assessments which weighted at 3 CATS or less (see also (c) below). This provision shall also apply to resit or other examinations taken in vacations.
b. The work to be considered shall be marked by one examiner and moderated by a second (using an appropriate method of moderation as outlined in the University’s Guidance on Moderation, available at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/dar/quality/categories/examinations/moderation) ; where the marks differ by a class, and cannot be resolved between the two markers, the work shall be referred to a third marker. In cases where the mark cannot be resolved by University markers, the case may be referred to the External Examiner. The moderator shall be expected to moderate the general level of the marks and their spread. The moderator shall also be responsible for checking the transcription and addition of the marks.
c. In cases where the final assessment mark is an aggregate of a collection of small pieces of work (of 3 CATS or less) sample moderation of some of the elements of assessment should be undertaken, it being noted that:
(A) examiners should be provided with agreed mark schemes and/or model answers where applicable;
(B) arrangements must be made for considering the array of marks and careful checking of the transcription and addition of marks.
2. All marks, including the initial marks of the first and second markers, shall be available to the External Examiner(s) (Senate 153d(i.D)/83-84)
3. The Senate, at its meeting on 19th June, 1991, resolved that University-wide anonymous marking of examinations be introduced with effect from the beginning the Summer Term 1992 in accordance with the practice proposed in paper EC.16/90-91, anonymity to apply up to the point where marks are agreed by internal markers (Senate 89(a)/90-91).
The practice proposed in paper EC16/90-91 and approved by the Senate is as follows:
(a) Anonymity in Marking
For scripts to be identifiable in the absence of a name each candidate should enter on the scripts his or her University card number. It is desirable that this number is used for the following reasons:
(i) students already have a degree of familiarity with their card numbers which should lessen the risk of error on their part. They are also required to have their University cards with them at examinations.
(ii) there will normally be a number of students who turn up to take examinations for which they have failed to register; use of the University card number means that an identification number is already available for such candidates.
(iii) the University card number renders students readily identifiable in relation to other central and departmental records.
(b) In the examination room:
Candidates are required to enter their University card number on their scripts and to obscure their name. The seating plan list will be produced to include card numbers as well as names to guide students who may attend without their cards.
At the conclusion of the examination, while it will not be possible to check the scripts by name, they can be checked by seat number, which candidates will continue to write on their scripts. If it is necessary to determine names for checking purposes, reference can be made to the attendance slips.
The seating plan will be produced in two versions, one with numbers only (subsequently provided to examiners) and one with names and numbers, both of which shall be annotated by the invigilators as required. The Academic Office representative will collect the names and numbers version at the end of the examination session.
(c) Marking of examination scripts.
Marking of scripts from invigilated examinations will be done without any knowledge of the candidate's name. The marker will however have available the numbers-only version of the seating plan returned with the scripts showing early leavers, etc.
Mark-sheets may then be converted by parent departments into names for the purposes of examination boards.
4. Where temporary members of academic staff are teaching a module (e.g. to cover for a permanent member of staff on sabbatical leave, or "bought- in" teachers for particular aspects) then they may be involved in the marking but overall charge for the marking of the examinations or assessed work must be the responsibility of a permanent member of staff (e.g. the normal lecturer for the module).
5. The assessment of a module gives rise to one (only) module result. A module result is derived from the assessment of one (only) module (different arrangements for assessment apply on the MBChB course) (Senate 93(d)/07-08).
6. Every module has a pass mark. For undergraduate modules (levels C, I and H) this is 40%. For postgraduate modules (level M and D) this is normally 50% (Senate 93(d)/07-08).
7. Module results contribute to overall degree results in direct proportion to their credit weighting, as set out in the relevant degree classification conventions (Senate 93(d)/07-08).
8. There are different schemes for combining module results from different years of degrees and other courses in calculating the final overall result for the course.
For example, on three-year Honours degrees the following weighting is typical for Arts and Social Studies courses: Year 1: 0%: Year 2: 50%: Year 3: 50%.
On three-year Honours degrees in the Faculty of Science the following is typical: Year 1: 10%; Year 2: 30%: Year 3: 60%
9. Guidance on the conversion of marks from overseas institutions for outgoing exchange students (as approved by Senate at its meeting on 8 June 2016) is available here