This year, around 70 graduates at the University of Sheffield walked across the stage at their graduation ceremonies without receiving their certificates and final classification. These students were affected by a months-long marking boycott, and some wore pink sashes reading ‘Settle the Dispute’ and ‘I support UCU’ over their gowns.
Many of the affected students had studied politics or philosophy courses. Those with enough marks received provisional classifications.
The University mitigated the impact of the missing marks by giving £500 to students who graduated without classifications and finding external examiners for unmarked work.
Some students are not satisfied with the University’s response to the boycott. Impacted students hoping to make complaints have organised several Whatsapp groups.
The groups include students with missing classifications who can’t move forward with masters applications or have concerns about the job search. Other students are upset about provisional classifications or the lack of clarity about the external marking process. One group has up to 40 members.
One politics and international relations student, who wishes to remain anonymous, said: “A lot of people are not happy about the whole situation.”
The student says the Politics Department has not informed students who marked their modules, and they hoped for “more transparency”.
The missing grades are due to the long-running industrial dispute over pay and working conditions between university management and staff represented by the University and College Union (UCU).
The UCU boycott started on the 20th of April and is set to last until the end of September.
🚨NEW: 26 Colleges across England will be brought to a halt by 10 days strike action, commencing at the end of September
They demand a proper pay rise. They deserve a proper pay rise
UCU members everywhere are rising up
RT if you back them#ucuRISING pic.twitter.com/j3Ejr4mWfu
— UCU (@ucu) September 12, 2022
In an email, the Politics Department responded to this student’s concerns which said: “The Department has used experts in the field for all marking, all work has been moderated and the externals have reviewed the process and marks at our exam board.”
This student, whose dissertation was also marked externally, suggests this information about the process is vague. “They’re not telling us exactly what is happening,” they say.
This student echoes what some others feel about external marking, particularly those who have worked closely with a dissertation supervisor over the course of the academic year. Students choose their dissertation supervisor based on the research the lecturers partake in.
Affected students were not informed of the qualifications of their external markers.
The politics student says: “It’s very frustrating we don’t know exactly who’s marking it. There’s no proof that a person who actually knows the subject marked it.”
Under the usual internal marking process, the student can count on their first marker almost always being the lecturer or supervisor of the module. Sometimes external marking is sought when lecturers are unable, such as parental, carer, or sick leave.
Work is then marked by a qualified second marker and moderated at an exam board. The exam board is made up of members of the departmental student experience team, academies who have marked the assessments, and an external examiner. This process was confirmed by the Philosophy Department.
The politics student also claims the outcome of the marking boycott has negatively impacted their mental health.
“Especially for my dissertation, I put in a lot of work and it’s disappointing. Okay whatever I got this [mark], but then I’m sure if it would’ve been my supervisor marking it, it would’ve been a different story. It’s very demotivating,” they said.
The Politics Department told students that dissertations would be marked twice, once by the supervisor and once by the Department. However, our interviewee says: “nowhere in my feedback does it say, this was the first mark and then the second one, the moderated one. There’s no proof two people did it.”
Students don’t typically receive proof of double marking, but the interviewee asked for confirmation of this considering the current lack of information provided by the University.
Markers also don’t typically identify themselves. The Philosophy Department confirms that if lecturers have marked assessments, students can assume they are the authors of feedback.
In June, some boycotting philosophy lecturers sent their students emails saying they did not know if external examiners were being used.
In the event of external marking, lecturers also said they did not know if students would receive fair results. One lecturer in the philosophy department stated: “the external marker would be likely to be completely unfamiliar with the module.”
Both lecturers and the Students’ Union sent students links to the marks appeals process in case they were unsatisfied with their external marks. The possibility of unfair results and evidence for the appeals process is why some students want to know the qualifications of their markers.
Some students in the philosophy department filed informal complaints asking for clarity on external examination and who would be marking their work.
Using the template provided by the Student Advice Centre, one complaint stated, “We are aware that we may have had work marked by external markers who do not have detailed knowledge of the module which we have studied. The external markers would not know the context of the assessment, or the methodological approach required for the module.”
A University official responded to the complaint saying substitute markers would have relevant experience, and that marking procedures were being “implemented as expected”.
They also state: “The department and university do not accept that only a particular member of staff is capable of marking the work. Markers are expected to assess work according to the standard marking criteria, and our moderation arrangements provide a check on the marking process.”
Concerning the process of substitute marking, the email also said: “We are confident that these measures ensure that robust and equitable assessment and feedback has been maintained.”
The politics interviewee’s other two modules were also marked externally. They said: “For one of my other modules, I sent in essay plans, I had meetings with my professor, and I even emailed him a draft of the essay. Now improvement isn’t taken into account at all.”
“It’s mind-boggling. You can’t tell me that people from other Unis will mark it the same way the professors who taught me would. I don’t think they actually get to see the whole content of the module.”
Mary Vincent, the Vice-president for Education, also responded to complaints from individual students without classifications.
She said: “The University is working to resolve this situation as soon as possible but I recognise that these are very difficult circumstances. I am truly sorry for the distress caused.”
Our interviewee feels hopeless about the industrial dispute, and upset that their education was interrupted by years of strikes on top of the marking boycott.
“I don’t think it’s ever going to get better,” they say. “The University is not meeting the UCU’s demands. I think it’s going to be a never-ending story.”
Students without classifications and with unmarked work currently have no timeline for when to expect the last of their grades.
