Two Marks Short, a Donor, and an Unsigned Slip
A final-year student scores 58.2% and needs 60% to retain a merit scholarship that covers her fees. A recheck shows 2 marks were deducted on a question where the marking scheme allows a range; restoring them gives 59.4%, still short. Her father sits on the college's donor committee. The invigilator's report from the chemistry paper says a mobile phone 'was seen near her desk' but names no student and is unsigned. The head of the examination committee suggests letting the matter go, because a formal inquiry would delay results for all 120 students. A colleague advises you to round 59.4 to 60 in the consolidated sheet, since the portal will accept it.
1. Separate the distinct issues in this situation, rank them by the obligation they create, and state what you would do about each.
Read the worked answer
The issues, separated.
- A marking error - an academic question, answered on merit alone. Recheck against the scheme, restore the 2 marks, document the correction. Outcome: 59.4%.
- A threshold rule - the scholarship cut-off belongs to the scholarship committee. The remedy for a near miss is a discretionary case, not a change to a total. Rounding 59.4 to 60 is fabricating a mark; it is also visible in a file that covers 120 students.
- An unsigned, unnamed phone report - it cannot ground a penalty against a named student, because there is no specific allegation to answer (natural justice: notice, particulars, right of reply). It equally cannot be treated as never written; record it and close it with reasons if it cannot be particularised. Delay to other students is not a reason to suppress it - results can be released to everyone else.
- The donor connection - a conflict of interest. Declare it in writing and step off any committee considering the scholarship.
- Your colleague's advice and your own interest in the results - irrelevant to the decision. The test is whether you could defend the sheet publicly.
Ranking. Integrity of the record first, fairness to the student second, speed last. Speed is the only value that conflicts with the others, and it is the weakest.
2. Write the reply you would send to the father (four to six sentences), and explain what you deliberately left out and why.
Read the worked answer
Draft reply. 'Thank you for writing about your daughter's result. Her script was rechecked against the marking scheme and two marks were restored, giving a final total of 59.4%. That is below the 60% threshold set by the scholarship committee, and I am not able to alter a total that the scheme does not support. Because of your role on the donor committee, I have declared an interest and passed the scholarship question to the head of that committee, who can consider any discretionary case on its merits. If you wish to challenge the marking itself, the appeal form and the seven-day deadline are available from the examinations office.'
What I left out, and why.
- No discussion of the phone report: it is unparticularised, relates to a different matter, and disclosing it would prejudice an inquiry that has not been opened.
- No mention of the colleague's suggestion or of internal pressure: it invites the inference that the outcome is negotiable.
- No comparison with other students' marks or with the scholarship of anyone else.
- No promise about the discretionary case: that decision is not mine to make, and implying otherwise would create a second problem.
Tone check. The letter concedes what is true (the correction), refuses what is wrong (the rounding), and offers a real route (the appeal and the committee). That is the whole of the duty.