Departmental Processes for Arriving at a Final Mark

The honours dissertation was submitted and grading began. The supervisor, having experienced a positive relationship with the student and being impressed by the scholarship of the work, gave a percentage mark of 85% and in a half-page report provided general statements highlighting the strengths of the work. The second marker, a colleague from within the department and chosen by the head, provided a critical review of the dissertation, measuring it against existing published work and highlighting some of its limitations. Still, it was seen as a sound piece and a grade of 65% was awarded.

Time for the examiners' meeting. 85%, 65% or some other number? That is the question. A raging argument, not the first, ensued. Various options were considered. The supervisor is closest to the work and the student and knows best - the grade should be 85%. The second examiner was impartial and better able to objectively assess the quality of the work by more universal benchmarks - the grade should be 65%. Could we get the student in for an oral exam? The 20% discrepancy is too great, we should get a third assessor, an external maker whose assessment will be beyond question, and accept the grade they assign. Then again, averaging 65% and 85% gives 75%. That's an A, isn't it? That seems a reasonable compromise!

How would you reflect on this outcome if you were

• the supervisor?
• the second examiner?
• the head of department?
• another member of staff?
• the dean?
• the student?