Senate Awarding Panel
It is proposed that Senate Awarding Panel is stood up (as per academic governance review) in 26/27 with terms of reference as below. The last Senate Sub-Group would take place on 7th October 2026 (due to insufficient time in the new academic year to onboard new members of Senate Awarding Panel following September Boards of Examiners). The principles for Senate Awarding Panel, including the method of operation, have been agreed and the wording of the terms of reference is available for consultation.
Nomination of Department representatives is being sought in advance of the approval of the terms of reference to allow sufficient time for Departments to identify and nominate suitable representatives. Brief information about the role of Department representatives on Senate Awarding Panel is available below. Any questions about the role, the proposal for Senate Awarding Panel or feedback on the draft terms of reference can be emailed to quality@warwick.ac.uk
Senate Awarding Panel is responsible for scrutiny of recommendations and approval of awards (UG, PGT and PGR), External Examiner appointments and Boards of Examiners membership. Department representatives form part of the sub-panels carrying out scrutiny and approval processes, primarily by correspondence. Training will be provided, but previous experience of award and assessment processes will be an advantage. There are peak periods of activity in June, July and November where rapid turnaround is required (1-2 working days); therefore, nominees should not normally be a current Examination Secretary. Appointments will normally be for three years, but during the introduction of the Senate Awarding Panel we are looking to replace approximately one third of the membership each year, so a shorter initial term may be nominated.
Senate Awarding Panel Terms of Reference - DRAFT
Purpose
The Senate Awarding Panel (SAP) provides assurance to the Senate that awards have been determined consistently, fairly and in compliance with University Regulations and Policy and meeting requirements of external regulatory bodies such as the Office for Students. It supports the effective operation of Boards of Examiners across undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research provision by providing proportionate, timely scrutiny of assessment processes and by identifying trends, risks and issues requiring institutional oversight.
Method of Operation
The Senate Awarding Panel will usually act through sub‑panels; decisions taken by such sub‑panels shall have the authority of the Senate Awarding Panel.
- Senate Award Approval Sub-Panels (SAASP) scrutinise and approve recommendations for taught, postgraduate research and institutional awards.
- Senate Examiners Sub-Panels (SESP) scrutinise and approve departmental recommendations relating to Board of Examiners membership and External Examiner appointment for taught courses.
- Special Cases Sub-Panels (SCSP) consider and determine individual student cases where a decision is required on the application or interpretation of academic regulations, rules or conventions, or where exceptional individual circumstances mean that existing regulations, rules or conventions cannot readily be used to reach an outcome.
Sub-panels will;
- be constituted when required by the Secretariat receiving recommendations
- be chaired by a full member of the Senate Awarding Panel
- comprise at least three members drawn from the Senate Awarding Panel membership, together with sub-panel Department representatives and sub-panel expert representatives
- have membership chosen with regard to the expertise required for the recommendation, referral or case to be considered
- usually contain a representative from each Faculty from which referrals or recommendations are considered
- not usually have members considering referrals or recommendations from their Department, unless the Chair of Senate Awarding Panel is satisfied that they are sufficiently independent of, and distant from, the matter under consideration.
To approve:
1. Recommendations from Boards of Examiners and sub-panels for the conferral, retraction or correction of undergraduate, postgraduate taught, postgraduate research and posthumous awards, confirming that academic requirements for the award have been satisfied in accordance with the University’s regulations and policies. [SAASP]
2. Recommendations by Heads of Department for the membership of Boards of Examiners for taught courses. [SESP]
3. Recommendations for appointment and extensions to, and withdrawal from, the role of External Examiner for taught courses against the criteria laid down for appointments. [SESP]
4. Arrangements for consideration of awards in cases where Boards of Examiners are non-quorate or External Examiners are unavailable. [SCSP]
5. Terms of reference for Boards of Examiners.
6. Criteria for appointment of External Examiners.
7. Matters to be delegated to sub-panels of Senate Awarding Panel.
To recommend:
8.To the Quality and Standards Subcommittee (QSS): proposals to clarify or amend regulations, policies, rules, conventions, criteria, guidance or process where recurring themes for taught courses arise relating to:
a) assessment, progression and awards;
b) the operation of Boards of Examiners;
c) External Examiner arrangements.
9.To the Postgraduate Research Subcommittee (PRS): proposals to clarify or amend regulations, policies, rules, conventions, criteria, guidance or process where recurring themes arise relating to postgraduate research awards.
To receive:
10.From Boards of Examiners, the Doctoral College and Special Cases Sub-Panels: Recommendations for awards in the form of Decision Record Logs.[SAASP]
11.From Boards of Examiners, the Doctoral College, Departments and Central Services: Cases relating to assessment, progression or award where:
a) a definitive ruling is required on the application and interpretation of regulations, rules or conventions relating to assessment, progression or award. [SCSP]
b) individual student circumstances mean that existing regulations, rules or conventions cannot be used to reach an outcome. [SCSP]
c) a decision is required to retain or correct a published decision of a Board of Examiners. [SCSP]
d) in the opinion of a Board of Examiners and its External Examiner(s), the application of regulations, rules or conventions would result in an anomalous outcome or manifest unfairness for a student. [SCSP]
12. From Boards of Examiners: Recommendations for the award of an Aegrotat degree. [SCSP]
13. From Student Records: Notification where a student has died prior to completion of their course, to recommend a posthumous award if appropriate. [SCSP]
14. From Departments: Nominations for Boards of Examiners membership for taught courses. [SESP]
15. From Departments: Recommendations for External Examiner appointment for taught courses or modules. [SESP]
16. From sub-panels: Reports arising from sub‑panel scrutiny and approval activity including analysis of trends and issues in award outcomes, external examiner appointments and the membership of Boards of Examiners.
To report:
17.To the Quality and Standards Subcommittee:
a) identified trends, risks and issues relating to taught assessment, awards and progression;
b) matters requiring policy, regulatory or procedural consideration, including any issues arising from the appointment of External Examiners or the membership, composition or operation of Boards of Examiners;
c) issues requiring institutional escalation or clarification;
18.To Postgraduate Research Subcommittee
a) identified trends, risks and issues relating to research awards;
b) matters requiring policy, regulatory or procedural consideration
19.To Senate
a) assurance that awards approved by the Panel provide a secure basis for the formal conferral of degrees.