Awards, progress and other regulatory matters: Awards

  • Awards are governed by the UMP Regulations and specific Subject Regulations.

    1. Any student satisfying the requirements for an award as determined by both general and specific regulations is given the award for which he or she qualifies. MEC does not spend time, nor does it need to spend time on them, other than to note the achievement and ensure that the student is on the appropriate award list.

    1. About 85%-90% of students qualifying for an award, meet the requirements normally without the need for exceptional consideration. This includes students who meet the rules for upgrade under the borderline regulations.
    2. A tight discipline over the deadline for the submission of module marks needs to be maintained if records and recommendations continue to be finalised for the majority of students in advance of MEC.
    3. A tight deadline for responses from SECs over matters that need to be considered is important if MEC is to meet fairly soon after the end of semester.

    2. Any student who does not satisfy the requirements for the award for which he or she is registered will normally be allowed to continue until he or she does satisfy the rules or until the point at which they have reached the maximum time allowed to complete their award. There are exceptional circumstances whereby students are allowed to graduate where they haven’t met the requirements provided they meet the compensation rules.

    1. Procedures need to be in place so that all such students can be identified and considered by SECs. [This is done via forms M9 and the gold pages.]
    2. Guidelines approved by MEC are available so that SECs are aware of precedent and procedures and practices relating to borderline and compensation rules.
    3. The possibility for an SEC to change a module mark or grade is normally restricted to the semester immediately preceding the SEC meeting. Changes to MC (awarded prior to September 2010), DD and DF grades are obviously allowed at other times and, of course, resit grades are changed at the end of semester 2 for semester 1 resits, at the end of July for semester 2 resits and at the end of semester 1 for summer (semester 3) resits. Marks cannot be altered in order to change a student’s overall classification.

    3. Any student who is recommended for an award or class by an SEC under existing guidelines will be given the award by MEC without further discussion.

    1. If any SEC recommendations under the compensation rules are properly presented and if they are properly understood by the Chair of MEC they will be reported to MEC and implemented. Please discuss any cases that you feel fall under the compensation rules/22 rule exceptions with Student Central. In such cases you will need to complete Form M30.

    4. A student who does not meet the requirements for an award but is deemed to be an exception because of circumstances not covered by existing guidelines should be discussed with the MEC sub-committee prior to the meeting of MEC. The Chair of MEC will advise over precedent, practice and the relationship to existing guidelines and will report the final recommendation and the reasons to MEC. These exceptions are specifically minuted.

    1. MEC has around 100 members. Broad-based discussion is not viable as a mechanism for making decisions about exceptions.
    2. The purpose of the presence of the Chief External Examiners is to enable them to advise MEC on the quality of the case as they perceive it, the equity of the case in relation to other cases that are similar or related, and the significance of the case in relation to the application of general standards for awards.
    3. The reporting of these cases and their appearance in the minutes allows SEC Chairs to recognise precedents and facilitates the on-going work of refining and developing guidelines.

    5. A student whose case has not been discussed with the MEC sub-committee, in the interests of natural justice, will still be considered by MEC, but MEC may record its concern that SEC failed to raise the matter with them at the earlier opportunity.

    1. MEC could not function effectively if all SECs failed to discuss exceptional cases with the MEC sub-committee. Failure to do so is likely to result in more imperfect consideration of such students.
    2. Communications and procedures are such that there is normally no excuse for an SEC failing to bring such a case to the MEC sub-committee.
    3. Guidelines should be reviewed regularly as well as the number and type of cases considered by the MEC sub-committee to ensure efficiency and equity.