Report of meeting held on 31 October 2011.

ASC is asked to consider ARSC's discussions in relation to the operation of the Code of Assessment on the professional programmes and is invited to comment on issues raised:

• ARSC proposes that the issue of credit rating on the professional programmes be discussed again with a view to the introduction of a form of credit rating.
• In the absence of credit rating, content of the Code in relation to award of credit (e.g. 'Credit Withheld', 'Credit Refused', 'Minimum Requirements for the Award of Credit') is not meaningful; unless/until credit rating is introduced, terminology related to satisfying the requirements to progress would be more relevant.
• While the Code generally permits reassessment in components or sub-components, on the professional programmes selective reassessment is not satisfactory and the current degree regulations make this clear. ARSC considers this to be a reasonable application of the Code.
• There are some components of assessment (additional requirements) that are marked as satisfactory/unsatisfactory, and which are not reported to Registry.
• While assessment is undertaken in relation to Schedule A and Schedule B, it is not possible to produce one overall course result (as required by the Code); consideration could be given to finding a way of combining the Schedules but it must remain clear that compensation between knowledge-based and competence-based assessment is not permitted.
• Some assessment on the professional programmes produces percentage scores; results are expressed as primary grades and secondary bands, but there is good reason for providing feedback to students in more detail.
• The Code of Assessment states that the requirements for the award of the professional degrees are expressed as grade point averages/average aggregation scores. This is in fact not the case and the wording of the Code should be amended accordingly.
• The criteria for award of Honours and Commendation on BDS and MBChB are not currently clear in regulations; this will be clarified. The BVMS will review its criteria for award of Honours and Commendation.
• MBChB regulations currently include an exemption from the Code's provisions on Incomplete Assessment and Good Cause in relation to final award, as 100% submission of assessments is required; BDS and BVMS wish to adopt the same exemption to reflect practice on their degrees.

Item for approval

ASC is asked to approve ARSC's proposed amendment to the provisions on Incomplete Assessment and Good Cause: regulation 16.52 (d) states that an honours candidate who has completed less than 75% but more than 30% of assessment and who does not accept an unclassified honours degree is to be regarded as 'not having been presented for honours'. ARSC proposes that this be amended so that such a student would be permitted to retake senior honours year without also having to repeat junior honours (reflecting actual practice).

Items for noting

• ARSC has responded to further comments from the DoGS group on proposed new combined regulations for PGT/MRes programmes, and DoGS will now report to RPSC.
• ARSC is gathering further information in relation to the operation of discretion in the award of honours classifications and the award of merit and distinction on PGT programmes, and will report to ASC further following consultation with Schools and Colleges.
• ARSC is consulting with Colleges on proposed amendments to the principles applying to assessment of visiting students and will bring proposals to ASC later in the session.

ARSC will take forward further work on issues under discussion; Senate Office will take forward incorporation of regulatory changes into the University Calendar 2012-13 and the development and dissemination of supporting guidance.

None known.

Regulatory changes: Publication of 2012-13 Calendar and accompanying guidance in summer 2012.

None.