6/14/13

University of London International Programmes Mail - RE: Freedom of Information Request:

MOSHE YIFTAH ADMON <ma183@student.london.ac.uk>

RE: Freedom of Information Request:

Moshe Admon <ma183@student.london.ac.uk> To: Records Management <Records.Management@london.ac.uk> Hello, Thank you for your previous reply. I will like to make a freedom of information request regarding the following: Please provide the following information: 1. The names and positions of the examiners of the May / June Zone A 2012 examination in Trust Law, Tort Law and Public Law. 2. The instructions given to examiners in respect of writing comments on the scripts. 3. The number of scripts marked by each of the 3 individual examiners who marked the largest number of scripts in the May / June 2012 examinations? 4. For each of the examiners identified in (3) above the period in which they marked the scripts (the number of days between the date the first script was given or sent to them and the date when the last script they marked was received by the University). 5. How much are examiners paid per script marked? 6. The marking schemes itemizing the specific criteria used in assessing student answers to each of the questions in the May / June Zone A 2012 examination in Trust Law, Tort Law and Public Law. 7. If the examiners do not mark on the exams, how do they notate errors? 8. Are examiners required to review exams in a certain location or can they do so at their leisure? 9. Has the University undertaken any investigation into how many minutes examiners take on average when marking scripts? If so, what were the findings? I greatly appreciate your assistance. Have a good week / weekend. Yours, Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:05 AM

-Moshe Admon, B.Sc., B.A. LL.B. Class of 2013, University of London SRN = 090389029

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=2a25069643&view=pt&q=foi&qs=true&search=query&msg=13d8d446aba49c9f&dsqt=1

1/1

6/14/13

University of London International Programmes Mail - RE: Freedom of Information Request:

MOSHE YIFTAH ADMON <ma183@student.london.ac.uk>

RE: Freedom of Information Request:

Kit Good <Kit.Good@london.ac.uk> To: "ma183@student.london.ac.uk" <ma183@student.london.ac.uk> Dear Mr Admon Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Thank you for your request for information, received 21 March.

You requested the following:

1. The names and positions of the examiners of the May / June Zone A 2012 examination in Trust Law, Tort Law and Public Law.

The names of the examiners for the May / June examinations are considered personal data and therefore exempt under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, personal information. Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption and does not require a public interest test. The University requires in its policies that examiners do not identify themselves to ensure that they are not subject to direct contact from students and the risk of irregularity or misconduct in assessment that carries.

2.

The instructions given to examiners in respect of writing comments on the scripts.

Students rights under Data protection and Freedom of Information Examiners are reminded that all scripts and any comments made about a script, whether recorded on the script or elsewhere, can be made available to candidates if they so request. Examiners are encouraged to put comments on the scripts and external examiners often find these helpful in their overview of the examining process. Please make any comments in such a manner that you are happy if the candidate ultimately reads them along with the script.

3. The number of scripts marked by each of the 3 individual examiners who marked the largest number of scripts in the May / June 2012 examinations?

1092, 1057, 1041

4. For each of the examiners identified in (3) above the period in which they marked the scripts (the number of days between the date the first script was given or sent to them and the date when the last script they marked was
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=2a25069643&view=pt&q=foi&qs=true&search=query&msg=13e32831f69ae7b2 1/5

6/14/13

University of London International Programmes Mail - RE: Freedom of Information Request:

received by the University)

48, 46, 60 (days) respectively

5.

How much are examiners paid per script marked?

The Universitys policies regarding Examiners can be found on the International Programmes website: http://www. londoninternational.ac.uk/examiners

Please find attached the 2011-12 schedule.

The 2012-13 schedule can be found at the following link: http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/ sites/default/files/examiners/examiner_payment_schedule_2012-13.pdf

6. The marking schemes itemizing the specific criteria used in assessing student answers to each of the questions in the May / June Zone A 2012 examination in Trust Law, Tort Law and Public Law.

For the general criteria for the assessment of exam answers, please find attached pp. 92-95 of the Programme Specification and Regulations LLB and Diploma in Law 2011-12 .

The University considers that the marking guidelines for specific questions are exempt from disclosure under Section 36 (2) (c) of the Freedom of Information Act, Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs. The University is currently awaiting a Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner (case ref: FS50475898) in regards to the disclosure of marking guidelines. In the event the Commissioner rules that the guidelines should be disclosed, the guidelines will be provided to you.

7.

If the examiners do not mark on the exams, how do they notate errors?

Examiners only mark on exam scripts.

8.

Are examiners required to review exams in a certain location or can they do so at their leisure?

At their leisure but provided they are based in the UK at the time and the location in which they review exams is private and confidential. 9. Has the University undertaken any investigation into how many minutes examiners take on average when marking scripts? If so, what were the findings?

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=2a25069643&view=pt&q=foi&qs=true&search=query&msg=13e32831f69ae7b2

2/5

6/14/13

University of London International Programmes Mail - RE: Freedom of Information Request:

No investigation has taken place.

Please let me know if you require any further information.

You can find out more about Freedom of Information at the University of London, and view our publication scheme, at the following link: http://www.london.ac.uk/foi.html

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can appeal against the decision by following our Freedom of Information complaints procedure, which can be found on our website at the following link http://www.london.ac.uk/foi.html. If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone: 0303 123 1113

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely
Kit Good University Records Manager & FOI Officer University of London Senate House | Malet Street | London WC 1E 7HU | UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7862 8216 Web: www.london.ac.uk

T he U nivers ity of L ondon is an exempt c harity in E ngland and Wales and a c harity regis tered in Sc otland (Reg.no.SC O 4 1 1 9 4 ). We are c ommitted to ac hieving a 2 0 % c ut in emis s ions from U nivers ity buildings by 2 0 1 5 . P leas e

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=2a25069643&view=pt&q=foi&qs=true&search=query&msg=13e32831f69ae7b2

3/5

6/14/13
think before you print.

University of London International Programmes Mail - RE: Freedom of Information Request:

From: Moshe Admon [mailto:ma183@student.london.ac.uk] Sent: 21 March 2013 14:05 To: Records Management Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Request:

Hello,

Thank you for your previous reply. I will like to make a freedom of information request regarding the following:

Please provide the following information: 1. The names and positions of the examiners of the May / June Zone A 2012 examination in Trust Law, Tort Law and Public Law. 2. The instructions given to examiners in respect of writing comments on the scripts. 3. The number of scripts marked by each of the 3 individual examiners who marked the largest number of scripts in the May / June 2012 examinations? 4. For each of the examiners identified in (3) above the period in which they marked the scripts (the number of days between the date the first script was given or sent to them and the date when the last script they marked was received by the University). 5. How much are examiners paid per script marked? 6. The marking schemes itemizing the specific criteria used in assessing student answers to each of the questions in the May / June Zone A 2012 examination in Trust Law, Tort Law and Public Law. 7. If the examiners do not mark on the exams, how do they notate errors? 8. Are examiners required to review exams in a certain location or can they do so at their leisure? 9. Has the University undertaken any investigation into how many minutes examiners take on average when marking scripts? If so, what were the findings?

I greatly appreciate your assistance. Have a good week / weekend.

Yours,

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=2a25069643&view=pt&q=foi&qs=true&search=query&msg=13e32831f69ae7b2

4/5

6/14/13

University of London International Programmes Mail - RE: Freedom of Information Request:

-Moshe Admon, B.Sc., B.A. LL.B. Class of 2013, University of London SRN = 090389029

2 attachments 2011-12 Ext Payments.pdf 82K laws-REVISEDllbregulations1112 pp 92-95.pdf 36K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=2a25069643&view=pt&q=foi&qs=true&search=query&msg=13e32831f69ae7b2

5/5

2. EXT.
First Degrees Masters Degrees Diplomas

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
PAYMENTS TO EXAMINERS
EXAMINATIONS FOR FIRST DEGREES MASTERS DEGREES AND DIPLOMAS FOR EXTERNAL STUDENTS IN 2011-2012 I. PRO-RATA FEES Setting papers For each theory or practical paper set (fee divisible between the examiners taking part): Half Unit Paper and 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 Credit Paper .. .. .. .. CIS/Creative Computing Coursework Setting .. .. .. .. Marking scripts (or essays) Payable to each examiner for up to two markings or readings per script Half Unit Paper and 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 Credit Paper LLB November referred papers Laws Skills Portfolio .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Laws Skills Portfolio Script Marking .. Laws Dissertation Script Marking .. Laws Dissertation to first marker .... Laws Dissertation to second marker .. Oral examinations (including giving dictation) Per candidate, to each of two examiners if required (Minimum fee 54.53 per day), If more than two examiners act, the pro-rata fees or the minimum fee per day is payable to each of the three examiners. For inspection of work submitted by candidates Masters Research Project/Dissertation/Reports MSc OPHRM Research Proposal 67.76 per marker 33.73 per marker .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13.75 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13.91 10.44 17.89 10.43 33.72 10.43 93.76 23.44 271.05 180.68 124.02

MSc Agricultural Sciences (WYC) R106 .. .. .. (pd assignment divisable between markers)..

..

.. 21.19

Computing and Information Systems/Creative Computing For a unit 10.24 per candidate assignment to first marker 2.56 per candidate assignment to second marker For CIS001 13.65 per candidate assignment to first marker 3.42 per candidate assignment to second marker 93.76 to first marker 23.44 to second marker 20.48 to first marker 5.12 to second marker

For CIS 320

For CIS Preliminary Report

2 EXT.

B.Sc. Degrees in EMFSS Payment for project marketing to each of two examiners per candidate Introduction to Information Systems (paper 60) .. Software Engineering (paper 61) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 24.62 43.94 43.94 55.52 55.52

Software Engineering: Theory and Practice (paper 139) .. Information Systems Project (paper 63/159) Independent Geographical Study (paper 157) Meetings .. .. .. ..

To each examiner, for attendance at each meeting if summoned by the University ..

..

60.98

II. BOARD FEES [The following fees apply to examinations held in 2011-2012 only and are subject to revision each year. The fees are not payable if the examination is not held] Board fees. - Board fees are divisible among all examiners acting. Allowance should be made for particularly arduous or difficult work and for special duties not covered by pro-rata fees. Method of Calculation: The allocation for each degree/diploma or cohort of degrees e.g. Economics Management Finance and Social Sciences (EMFSS) will be calculated by the Distribution Department of the International Academy, on the basis of the mark sheets that are submitted for scrutiny at the Final Board meetings, supplemented where appropriate, by any late marks reported by Examiners and/or the Chair of the Board to the Student Assessment Department of the International Academy. For each degree/diploma or cohort of degrees, there will be a flat fee payment of For each script, once the script mark has been confirmed at the final meeting, or by Chair action a payment of Examples A degree programme where there were 800 script marks confirmed by the Board of Examiners, the Board fee calculation would be: 63.86 + 800 scripts at 0.74 Total Board fee allocation = 655.86 If the allocated board fee falls below 222.20, the total fee will be 222.20. 63.86 0.74

2 EXT.

III. CHIEF EXAMINERS FEES Chief Examiners where appointed should be paid at the following rates. Total no. of scripts marked 501+ 501+ 501+ 251-500 251-500 251-500 101-250 101-250 101-250 51-100 51-100 51-100 1-50 No of examiners >5 3-5 2 >5 3-5 2 >5 3-5 2 >5 3-5 2 2 or More Fee 708.76 plus +24p per script 531.85 plus +24p per script 353.83 plus +24p per script 471.76 plus +24p per script 413.91 plus +24p per script 294.86 plus +24p per script 412.80 plus +24p per script 354.93 plus +24p per script 235.84 plus +24p per script 353.83 plus +24p per script 295.97 plus +24p per script 147.98 plus +24p per script 87.90 plus +24p per script

IV. CHAIR FEES [The following fees apply to examinations held in 2011-2012 only and are subject to revision each year]. Method of Calculation: For all degree/diploma programmes or cohort of degrees e.g. Economics, Management Finance, and the Social Sciences (EMFSS) where in any given year there are fewer than 250 exam scripts to assess: Chair fee base rate 76.64

For all degree/diploma programmes or cohort of degrees e.g. Economics, Management Finance, and the Social Sciences (EMFSS) where in any given year there are greater than 250 exam scripts to assess: Chair fee base rate 127.73

In addition, to be added to the above base rate fees, a fee for each script once the mark has been confirmed at the final meeting of the Board of Examiners or by chair action 0.44 If the allocated chair fee falls below 191.90, the total fee should be 191.90

2 EXT.

V. EXTERNAL AND INTERCOLLEGIATE EXAMINERS FEES [The following fees apply to examinations held in 2011-2012 only and are subject to revision each year]. Method of Calculation: Chair of Board of Examiners are asked to calculate fees on the following basis: For each External or Intercollegiate Examiner appointed a flat base fee of: In addition, the following fees will be added to the base fee For each individual examination question paper vetted: For each script in a degree programme or examination question paper, for which they are the responsible External or Intercollegiate Examiner: Example An External or Intercollegiate Examiner on a degree programme, responsible for 15 exam papers for which there are 430 scripts the total fee would be: 127.73 + (15 x 19.34 = 290.10) + (430 x 0.40 = 172.00) Total 589.83 19.34 0.40 127.73

To ensure comparable fee levels are paid where applicable to External and Intercollegiate Examiners, the Distribution Department of the International Academy will send to the Chair a document listing the fees paid to their respective External and Intercollegiate Examiners in the previous session.

VI. TRAVELLING EXPENSES (i) For each occasion on which an examiner who is external to the University is required to attend a practical examination, oral examination, or examiners meeting, they may claim the return railway fare in standard class only and the cost of travel by underground and/or public road transport (bus or coach) for all necessary journeys actually performed together. Please refer to the University travel policy for allowances and expenditure limits. (ii) For each occasion on which an examiner who is a teacher of the University is required to attend a practical examination, oral examination or examiners meeting they may claim from the University the return railway fare and the cost of travel by underground and/or public road transport (bus or coach) from the College or Institute at which they are a teacher for all necessary journeys actually performed. Any claim for travelling expenses under these provisions shall be made to the University as soon as possible after the conclusion of the examination. (iii) In the event of travel from a vacation address the travelling expenses shall be agreed by the Director of the International Academy Administration before they are incurred. All claims submitted without receipts will not be processed. (iiii) Please forward all expense claims to the Fees Office. We advise that you retain a copy of the claim form and all receipts.

A. BOLLINGTON Chief Operating Officer International Academy

University of London CLOC Printing Service 12/11

Annex E Assessment Criteria

Assessment criteria provide information about what is required to be awarded a particular mark.

LLB
These assessment criteria are intended to be indicative and not all the criteria listed are necessarily relevant to the award of Honours in individual programmes. In programmes where the final result is calculated by aggregate or other mathematical formula, these criteria apply to the individual components of the degree.

First class (70% +)

A first class answer has a thoughtful structure and follows a clear argument displaying personal reflection informed by wider reading, and an excellent grasp of detail (as evidenced by the choice of relevant examples which are integrated into the answers structure). First class answers are ones that are exceptionally good for an undergraduate and which demonstrate several (though not necessarily all) of the following criteria in addition to the qualities expected of an upper second class answer: A thorough understanding of the relevant principles and concepts. An extensive range and consistent accuracy of information and knowledge. Fluent argument demonstrating independent thinking or critical insight. Evidence of study outside the prescribed range of the programme. Outstanding presentation, structure and standard of written communication Problem questions: (In addition to the above) Awareness and understanding of more subtle and complex aspects of the question and/or the ability to consider the issues in the broader context of the discipline Identification and application of the legal rules and the case law to the facts in question will be both accurate and insightful A conclusion that accurately and persuasively provides specific advice on, or analysis of, the legal position of the relevant party/ies

Second class honours, division 1 (60 69%)

An upper second class answer shows a good understanding of the subject, supported by examples which are demonstrably well understood and which are presented in a coherent and logical fashion. The answer should be well presented and structured and display very good analytical ability. Upper second class answers will demonstrate most or all of the following: A good understanding of the relevant principles and concepts. Wide and accurate range of information and knowledge deployed. Clear argument which may demonstrate a degree of independent thinking or critical insight. Good quality of presentation, structure and standard of written communication Problem questions: (In addition to the above) Clear and well reasoned application of the principles and concepts to the facts in questions (e.g. the candidate has demonstrated that s/he can both distinguish cases on their facts and argue by analogy) A conclusion that provides comprehensive and accurate advice on, or analysis of, the legal position of the party/ies.

Second class honours, division 2 (50 59%)

A lower second class answer is one which is a substantially correct answer that demonstrates most or all of the following: A sound knowledge and understanding of the relevant principles and concepts. A standard but largely accurate range of information deployed. May rely more on knowledge than on argument or analysis. Satisfactory quality of presentation, structure and standard of written communication.

92

Problem questions: (In addition to the above) Evidence of ability to apply relevant principles and concepts to address the facts in question A conclusion that provides clear and competent advice on, or analysis of, the legal position of the party/ies.

Third class honours (40- 49%)

An answer that shows an adequate level of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter that meets the minimum requirements necessary to communicate intelligently on the topic and demonstrates some or all of the following An adequate knowledge and understanding of the basic principles and concepts. Adequate argument with some evidence of analytical and evaluative skills. Adequate quality of presentation, structure and standard of written communication. Problem questions: (In addition to the above) Limited evidence of problem-solving skills (e.g. the answer is descriptive only but demonstrates an adequate knowledge of basic principles and concepts relevant to the question)

Fail (0-39%)
Fails to meet the minimum requirements of the assessment criteria. Such answers typically contain some or all of the following: Inadequate knowledge of principles and concepts Little or no evidence of ability to construct coherent arguments Little or no evidence of analytical and evaluative skills Little or no evidence of having read key texts and materials Rudimentary quality of presentation, structure and standard of written communication Problem questions: In addition to the above, a fail answer to a problem question is one that demonstrates: Little or no evidence of problem solving skills (e.g. the answer is descriptive only and contains significant errors or omissions)

Diploma in Law
Distinction* level (70% +)
A Distinction-level answer has a thoughtful structure and follows a clear argument displaying personal reflection informed by wider reading, and an excellent grasp of detail (as evidenced by the choice of relevant examples which are integrated into the answers structure). Distinction-level answers are ones that are exceptionally good for an undergraduate and which demonstrate several (though not necessarily all) of the following criteria in addition to the qualities expected of a Merit-level answer: A thorough understanding of the relevant principles and concepts. An extensive range and consistent accuracy of information and knowledge. Fluent argument demonstrating independent thinking or critical insight. Evidence of study outside the prescribed range of the programme. Outstanding presentation, structure and standard of written communication Problem questions: (In addition to the above) Awareness and understanding of more subtle and complex aspects of the question and/or the ability to consider the issues in the broader context of the discipline Identification and application of the legal rules and the case law to the facts in question will be both accurate and insightful A conclusion that accurately and persuasively provides specific advice on, or analysis of, the legal position of the relevant party/ies

93

Merit* level (60 69%)

A Merit-level class answer shows a good understanding of the subject, supported by examples which are demonstrably well understood and which are presented in a coherent and logical fashion. The answer should be well presented and structured and display very good analytical ability. Merit-level answers will demonstrate most or all of the following: A good understanding of the relevant principles and concepts. Wide and accurate range of information and knowledge deployed. Clear argument which may demonstrate a degree of independent thinking or critical insight. Good quality of presentation, structure and standard of written communication Problem questions: (In addition to the above) Clear and well reasoned application of the principles and concepts to the facts in questions (e.g. the candidate has demonstrated that s/he can both distinguish cases on their facts and argue by analogy) A conclusion that provides comprehensive and accurate advice on, or analysis of, the legal position of the party/ies.

Credit* level (50 59%)

A Credit-level answer is one which is a substantially correct answer that demonstrates most or all of the following: A sound knowledge and understanding of the relevant principles and concepts. A standard but largely accurate range of information deployed. May rely more on knowledge than on argument or analysis. Satisfactory quality of presentation, structure and standard of written communication. Problem questions: (In addition to the above) Evidence of ability to apply relevant principles and concepts to address the facts in question A conclusion that provides clear and competent advice on, or analysis of, the legal position of the party/ies.

Pass (40-49%)
An answer that shows an adequate level of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter that meets the minimum requirements necessary to communicate intelligently on the topic and demonstrates some or all of the following: An adequate knowledge and understanding of the basic principles and concepts. Adequate argument with some evidence of analytical and evaluative skills. Adequate quality of presentation, structure and standard of written communication. Problem questions: (In addition to the above) Limited evidence of problem-solving skills (e.g. the answer is descriptive only but demonstrates an adequate knowledge of basic principles and concepts relevant to the question)

Fail (0-39%)
Fails to meet the minimum requirements of the assessment criteria. Such answers typically contain some or all of the following: Inadequate knowledge of principles and concepts Little or no evidence of ability to construct coherent arguments Little or no evidence of analytical and evaluative skills Little or no evidence of having read key texts and materials Rudimentary quality of presentation, structure and standard of written communication Problem questions: In addition to the above, a fail answer to a problem question is one that demonstrates: Little or no evidence of problem solving skills (e.g. the answer is descriptive only and contains significant errors or omissions)

94

Notes:
* The terms Distinction, Merit and Credit apply only to the final classification of the Diploma in Law as a whole (see Schedule C). Distinction-level, Merit-level and Credit-level are used above to indicate the class equivalence of the mark ranges applied to individual examination papers.

95