Assessment and Examinations

In this section of the Handbook, we provide information about the assessment methods that are used throughout the degree programme, as well as the various policies and procedures that are in place. You can find details of all policies relating to assessment and feedback on our Assessment and Feedback webpage. In particular, here you will find a link to the Department's Assessment Strategy.

We have always been focused on enhancing teaching and learning. Through the richness of the curricula and syllabi, you are able to develop a range of skills, capacities and capabilities, which are designed to meet the aims and learning objectives of the courses and modules. It is appropriate that different learning objectives are assessed in different ways and this is reflected in a wide variety of types of assessment.

As a Department we are mindful of the different academic backgrounds of our students. We are aware that the UK higher education system may be very different to systems in which you have previously studied. With this in mind, we do our best to help familiarize you with the academic culture in the UK, particularly around how learning takes place in lectures and classes, approaches to assessment, expected standards of work, marking and plagiarism.

You will receive feedback on your work in a variety of ways and it we encourage you to make use of all opportunities for feedback, as a means of developing your skills, reflecting on your work and enhancing your student experience.

Assessment criteria

Coursework and examinations are marked to an absolute standard, not a relative one. There are no ‘quotas’ for failures or for the numbers gaining a particular class of degree. All examinations are marked and moderated independently by two examiners and all coursework that forms part of student assessment is also marked and moderated by two examiners. The pass mark for all postgraduate modules is 50%.

Assessment criteria

We list below the criteria which we use in the Economics Department for marking students’ work. All work is marked on a percentage scale and it is our policy to use the whole range. The MRes dissertation has different marking criteria, which can be found in the dissertation guidelines.

80 PLUS

An outstanding piece of work, showing complete mastery of the subject, with an exceptionally developed and mature ability to analyse, synthesise and apply concepts, models and techniques. All requirements of the set work are covered, and work is free from errors. The work demonstrates originality of thought, with strong critical reflection and the ability to tackle questions and issues not previously encountered. Ideas are explained with great lucidity and in an extremely organised manner.

70-79

An excellent piece of work, showing mastery of the subject, with a highly developed and mature ability to analyse, synthesise and apply concepts, models and techniques. All requirements of the set work are covered, and work is free from all but very minor errors. There is good critical reflection and the ability to tackle questions and issues not previously encountered. Ideas are explained very clearly and in a highly organised manner.

60-69

A good piece of work, showing a sound grasp of the subject. A good attempt at analysis, synthesis and application of concepts, models and techniques. Most requirements of the set work are covered, but there may be a few gaps leading to some errors. There is some critical reflection and a reasonable attempt is made to tackle questions and issues not previously encountered. Ideas are explained clearly and in a well organised manner, with some minor exceptions.

50-59

A satisfactory piece of work, showing a grasp of major areas of the subject, but probably with areas of ignorance. Analysis, synthesis and application of concepts, models and techniques is mechanical, with a heavy reliance on course materials. The requirements of the set work are covered but with significant gaps. Little or no critical reflection and limited ability to tackle questions or issues not previously encountered. Ideas are explained adequately but with some confusion and lack of organisation.

40-49

A failing piece of work. There is a weak attempt at analysis, synthesis and application of concepts, models and techniques. Only some of the requirements of the set work are covered. Inability to reflect critically and difficulty in beginning to address questions and issues not previously encountered. Ideas are poorly explained and organised.

Below 40

A failing piece of work. There are extremely serious gaps in knowledge of the subject, and many areas of confusion. Few or none of the requirements of the set work are covered. The student has failed to engage seriously with the subject and finds it impossible to begin to address questions and issues not previously encountered. The levels of expression and organisation in the work are very inadequate.

Coursework and Examinations

MRes module examinations and assessment

MRes Year 1*

In MRes year 1, all modules are compulsory. In year 2, you choose five field modules (from the list below) and complete a dissertation. You are permitted to take up to two (15 credit) modules from outside the department (along-with three of the modules listed below) but you must gain the agreement of the Director of MRes/PhD to do so. All of the (Economics) second year modules are based on 100% assessment, which in most cases will be concluded by the end of term two, allowing you to concentrate on the dissertation from the start of term three. The list below is indicative rather than definitive and we cannot guarantee that all of the options listed will be offered in every year.

MRes Year 2*

*Please note the structure of the programme may be subject to change. We consult you (through the GSSLC) about any proposed changes for the programme.

MRes assessment and examination scheme and progression rules

The following are guidelines only and the Board of Examiners reserves the right to exercise its discretion in individual cases. The exam scheme should be read in conjunction with the Rules for AwardLink opens in a new window.

Examination Components

The examination components for the MRes in Economics are as follows, with the weighting of the module mark towards the final average mark being in proportion to the number of CATS listed:

Note: Students are permitted in year 2 of the MRes to take up to two 15 credit modules from outside the Department. These students will overcat by a maximum of 6 CATs.

Pass Marks: The pass mark for all modules is 50%.

Progression Rules: First year to second year: you must pass each of the core modules EC9A1, EC9A2 and EC9A3. Second year to dissertation: you must pass EC9AA and each of the option field modules to progress to the dissertation.

To be awarded the MRes in Economics: A candidate who passes each of the taught modules and passes the dissertation will be awarded the MRes.

MSc in Advanced Economics (in place of the MRes): A candidate who passes each of the taught modules, but fails the dissertation (having resubmitted the dissertation once), will be awarded the MSc Advanced Economics.

PG Diploma in Advanced Economics (in place of the MRes): A candidate who has taken 120 credits, passed at least 90 credits at 50% or above, and passed at least 30 credits at 40% or above, will be awarded the PG Diploma Advanced Economics.

PG Certificate in Advanced Economics: A candidate who passes two of the core modules only (minimum of 60 credits) will be awarded the PG Certificate Advanced Economics. This qualification will be awarded at the end of the first year to those who do not meet the requirements to progress to the second year.

Progression to the PhD
In order to automatically proceed onto the PhD programme, the candidate must:
(i) pass all modules and

(ii) achieve an average of 65% over all taught modules in year 1 and 2 and

(iii) demonstrate strong performance in the year 1 core modules (i.e. average of not less than 60% across EC9A1, EC9A2, EC9A3) and

(iv) achieve a mark of at least 65% in the dissertation.

(Calculation of the averages for both taught and core, will be weighted by the number of CATs for each module).

Marking Conventions

For the purposes of the individual elements of the course, the following marking conventions are in place:

The MRes degree carries a Distinction, a Merit and a Pass classification. Any candidate having an average mark of 70.0% or higher taken across all components of the course, with no individual module mark of less than 50.0%, will be normally considered for a Distinction. Any candidate having an average mark of between 60.0% and 69.9% taken across all components of the course, with no individual module mark of less than 50.0%, will be normally considered for a Merit.

Where the weighted average for classification is within 2 percentage points of the borderline for the Distinction or Merit category, students should be promoted if at least 50% of the weighted credits counting towards the classification are above the class boundary and this should include the dissertation.

Right to Remedy Failure

The candidate will be offered the right to remedy failure on one occasion in each module. All resit marks are capped at 50%. The reassessment method can vary from one module to another, and candidates are advised to check the module catalogue for the definitive information.

Where a candidate has a further first attempt (FFA) for a module that contains more than one element of assessment, the candidate shall normally be required to be examined only in the element(s) of the assessment which has(have) not met the minimum pass mark, noting that the appropriate method of assessment is determined by the Board of Examiners.

Methods of coursework submission

You should submit assessed coursework via electronic submission in Tabula.

You can submit your work electronically up until 12 noon on the deadline day and all work is date-and time-coded. Penalties will be applied to work submitted after this time. You are strongly encouraged to complete e-submission prior to 11:00 on the day of the deadline in order that you can inform us of any problems that may arise. The system can become very busy just before a deadline and neither this, nor computer difficulties will be accepted as a reason for late submission.

It is your responsibility to check carefully that you have uploaded the correct file via e-submission. Failure to upload the correct file will result in a penalty of five marks per day until the correct file is produced. Penalties only accrue on working days (not weekends or public holidays).

Here are some key points to follow to ensure you don't make a mistake:

• You must ensure your document includes your student ID number, but not your name, as all marking is carried out anonymously. You should also include the final word count.
• The assignment must be a 100% electronic submission and so any object such as graphs, figures or equations will have to be incorporated into your electronic document.

• To submit your document online, you will need to create a PDF document. You can download a copy of the free software ‘PDF ConverterLink opens in a new window’ from ITS and follow the instructions. Alternatively, on a Warwick PC go into Software Center and install Power PDF. You will then be able to create a PDF within Word by choosing the Nuance PDF tab and then selecting Create PDF. If you do not have any PDF software installed and can only use the Microsoft Word SaveAs PDF feature you MUST select the options button and then untick ‘Bitmap text when fonts may not be embedded’. If you do not the file will be unreadable and you will be asked to resubmit your work and may receive a late penalty.

• Name the resultant PDF file as follows: module code-assignment number.pdf.
• Check the final document before uploading to ensure it has been converted accurately.
• Double check that you are submitting the correct document and that you are submitting it to the correct module/assessment.
• If you submit more than one document for your assignment these documents should be submitted simultaneously.
• You must take care that you have logged into Tabula using your own username and that you are not logged in using a friend's account who has used the computer before you.

Deadlines

Each piece of work must be submitted by a particular date set by the Postgraduate Office and module leader (and displayed in Tabula). You will be given notice of these deadlines at the beginning of term and notified of any changes. It is your responsibility to arrange your own programme and manage your time accordingly. We advise you always to leave a safety margin in case of last–minute difficulties in obtaining books, printing files and so on. The University stipulates that markers have a maximum of twenty University working days for completion of marking, so you should receive your marks within 20 University working days of your submisison.

Please note that the submission deadlines and test dates can be found on the MRes Hub page.

Specific deadline extensions

To seek a specific extension for assessed work you must make a request in TabulaLink opens in a new window via the Coursework Management portal. Please email economics.pgoffice@warwick.ac.ukLink opens in a new window if you have any difficulties. The Assistant Programme Manager will consider all extension requests for modules delivered by the Department of Economics. Requests must be supported by evidence, which should be submitted within 5 working days of making your request. Evidence that is in any other language than English must be accompanied by an official translation. Should there be an unexplained delay of more than one week before submitting your evidence we may not be able to agree to your extension request.

If you are taking an external module that does not use Tabula coursework management, then please submit a Mitigating Circumstances claim in Tabula and we will liaise with the delivering department. Students taking external modules who do not wish to disclose information outside their home department may contact their home department to request support for a specific extension request.

Any requests for extensions should be made in a timely manner and ideally by the assessment deadline. Requests must be supported by evidence, which should be submitted within 5 working days of making your request. Evidence that is in any other language than English must be accompanied by an official translation. Should there be an unexplained delay of more than one week before submitting your evidence we may not be able to agree to your extension request.

Extensions are not available for technological difficulties — you should anticipate that your hard drive may crash, your work may be destroyed by a virus, or that your laptop may get stolen. Make sure you back up to One Drive or your network disk space. Do not store your backup with your computer and definitely not in your laptop bag. Note also that extensions will not be granted on the basis of a student being in full- or part-time employment, or undertaking a summer internship.

For assessments that are spread out over a long period of time, such as dissertations, there is an expectation that almost every student will encounter some difficulties in their lives during this period. As a result, it is anticipated that you will handle these situations without impacting on your final submission. Thus, low-level and short-term illnesses will not be considered as a basis for an extension for this type of work.

Late submission or failure to submit

Work submitted late will be marked subject to a penalty, unless an assessment deadline extension has previously been approved. All work submitted late (after 12.00 noon on the due date) will incur a five-mark penalty per day (not including weekends, University closure days and public holidays) with a minimum mark of zero for an assessment. Late work must be submitted by the original method of submission for that particular module.

For work that is submitted electronically, do not leave it too close to the last minute. Penalties cannot be removed in situations where the network was busy around the time of the submission deadline. You must also check your submitted work. If you initially submit the wrong document and either you or the marker identifies this, you can still submit the correct one, but a late penalty will be applied as detailed above. Penalties cannot be adjusted if you or we later find that you have submitted a wrong file or a corrupted document. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are submitting the correct assignment to the correct link by the deadline. For problem sets, where solutions are discussed in module Support and Feedback classes immediately after submission, any late submissions will receive a mark of zero.

A zero mark will be recorded when a candidate fails to present themselves for a test or submit an item of assessment for a module for which they have been registered.

Marking

A percentage mark will be awarded and recorded on each piece of assessed coursework. All marks that contribute towards degree credit are moderated across the range of marks and across the first markers. Usually this involves taking a preliminary sample, then sampling more thoroughly where the preliminary sample indicates discrepancies. The agreed marks remain provisional until confirmed by the Exam Board. Thus, you are told your marks on a provisional basis. Due to moderation, the mark on your assessment may not be the same as the mark on Tabula. The mark on Tabula is your final moderated mark.

Marks for assessed work will be returned to you within 20 University working days of the submission deadline/test date through Tabula. Please note that this excludes weekends and other days when the University is closed. You will receive a notification when your mark is available in Tabula. All assessment and examinations marks are only provisional and will not become finalised until after the Exam Board. The 20 University working day deadline does not apply to the final test/exam on a module or dissertations/projects; these marks are released after the Exam Board.

Please also see the University Policy on the Provision of Feedback to Students on Assessed WorkLink opens in a new window.

Feedback on your assesed work

Learning is a dynamic process and feedback plays an important role in helping you to develop your knowledge and build confidence in your own abilities. Therefore, our aim is to provide you with as much feedback as is reasonably achievable, given the volume of students taught on any module. The Department takes very seriously the provision of feedback on assessed work. We are sensitive to the importance of this and have mechanisms in place to enhance the quality of the feedback on assessed work.

You will receive a written evaluation of your coursework on a range of relevant criteria including comprehension, analysis, critique and presentation. You may also receive written comments in the margins of your work. These should enable you to understand the basis of the mark you have been given and how you may improve your work in the future. You will find the mark you received on Tabula.

Where relevant, the lecturer will provide generic feedback about what was expected, together with reflections on what students typically did well or where they might have struggled.

Occasionally, you will receive paper feedback on your work. The Postgraduate Office will announce days/times for the collection of specific pieces of assessed work. The Department does not accept responsibility for work which is not collected by students within four term-time weeks of its being made available for collection.

If you are not satisfied with the quality of the feedback you have received, you should approach the module lecturer or tutor. However, prior to doing this, you must be able to demonstrate that you have reviewed your personal feedback, and any generic feedback, and reflected on both through re-reading your work. You are also advised to make use of Advice and Feedback hours to further discuss your feedback, noting, however, that markers are not permitted to re-read your assessment. If you still need more information, go to the Postgraduate Office, who will forward your request for more feedback to the Director of MRes/PhD.

Querying assessed work marks

University regulations state that you may not query a mark awarded on a piece of assessed work, including an examination, on the basis of academic judgement. We will reject any requests by you to have your work reviewed on the basis that you disagree with the marker’s evaluation of your performance, whether it is based on the mark or the feedback. You are entitled to approach the module leader or lecturer to discuss your performance in the assessment, but please note what you must do prior to this, as outlined in the previous sectionLink opens in a new window. However, you are not permitted to ask your lecturer or tutor to re-read your work or comment on the mark/feedback and certainly not to lobby for a re-mark.

If you believe that the marks for a piece of coursework (not an exam) in a module run by the Department of Economics have been totalled incorrectly, you are permitted to request an arithmetic check on the paper. We have the right, after such an arithmetic check, to adjust the mark upwards or downwards.

Should you wish to request an arithmetic check of your marks for an assessment (not an exam), please complete an Assessed Work Mark Check form, which is available from the useful forms section. You should email it, together with the marked copy of the assessed work in question, to the PG Office within seven working days of the date the marked assessment was made available for you to view. We will then carry out a check of the marks. If no discrepancy is found, you will be advised of this. You will be advised that there is no right to a further check or questioning of marks. Should a discrepancy be discovered, we will calculate the correct mark for the work and adjust this on our systems. You will then be contacted and emailed with a copy of your assessed work with the corrected mark annotated on it.

Class tests

A number of modules have mid-term tests that contribute to your final marks in the module concerned. Class tests are organised by the Department rather than by the central examinations team, but the following normal exam conditions apply unless advised otherwise:

• You should not use any books, papers, calculators, mobile phone or any other information storage and retrieval device to the test unless this is expressly permitted in the test rubric.
• All coats and bags must be left at the side or back of the classroom.
• You must not talk or communicate with other candidates or pass information to one another during the test.
  

Please note that the Department reserves the right to take group photographs of students attending a test, in order to discourage cheating through assumed false identities. Please see section below entitled 'Good Practice in Exams', as a class test will be treated in the same way as an examination.

The Department cannot grant an extension to a test or reschedule the date of any test. If you are unable to take a test, or your illness is of such long duration that it prevents you from submitting a piece of work within an appropriate extension, please submit an application for mitigating circumstances in Tabula with supporting evidence.

Mitigating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances are defined as significant personal difficulties that have a negative impact on a student’s ability to study for or complete academic assessments including examinations. They may be acute, severe, exceptional, and are outside the student’s control. Circumstances eligible for mitigating circumstances will usually be unforeseen and will not be possible to cover via reasonable adjustments.

Who to talk to:

We are aware that in some cultures it is considered shameful or embarrassing to disclose the details of these kinds of circumstance to those outside one’s family. This is not the case in the prevailing UK culture, and you should be aware that the Department and the University are fully supportive of students in difficult circumstances and want to assist if at all possible. If you feel inhibited from talking to a Personal Tutor or the Senior Tutor, you may also consider talking to a member of the GSSLC, the Students’ Union, the Dean of Students or a member of staff in Student Support for initial, informal advice. Be assured that we treat all information in a confidential manner and our electronic filing system is secure.

How to declare mitigating circumstances:

You should submit your mitigation through the ’Personal Circumstances’ tab on Tabula, which you can access through your personal student tabula page.

Please make sure you include any related evidence required to support your application. These could be medical certificates or other forms of documented evidence by a third party verifying the nature of your mitigating circumstances.

Please use this guide to declare your mitigating circumstances. Further detailed guidance on mitigating circumstances procedure is available here.

If you are taken ill during an examination you should inform the Senior Invigilator immediately and submit a mitigating circumstances claim as soon as possible, following the guidance on the link above.

During the exam period if you are experiencing extenuating circumstances and you think you are NOT FIT to sit a particular exam, then you should NOT sit the exam. You will need to submit a mitigating circumstances application via Tabula explaining the details and this should include supporting independent evidence outlining the severity of your circumstances and why you are not fit to sit the exam. The Postgraduate Office team will then contact you about your application and provide guidance and support. As a student it is your responsibility to inform the department via your application as to why you are not fit to sit an exam and to provide appropriate supporting independent evidence. If you choose to sit an exam, then you have declared yourself FIT to sit the exam. You will not then be able to request a further first attempt.

Deadlines: where you are applying for an extension to a coursework deadline because of mitigating circumstances, you must apply as soon as possible/ and definitely before the submission deadline. All other mitigating circumstances claims must be submitted as soon as possible. The deadline for submitting claims relating to Term 1 exams is 26 January 2024. The deadline for submitting claims for the June Exam Board is 24 May 2024. The deadline for submitting claims relating to the September resits is 13 September 2024. Without wanting to invade your privacy, the University does expect that you bring such circumstances to the Department’s attention in a timely manner, despite the discomfort you might feel in so doing. The Department will do all it can to support you in difficult situations.

You should be aware that the Department will only consider mitigating circumstance claims after exam board results have been released if there are exceptional reasons why the submission could not be presented at the correct time accompanied by supporting evidence. Please note that claims of being too embarrassed to talk about your case at the time will not be considered as exceptional reasons for late submission. Any claim that would not be considered by the Department may only be considered by an Academic Appeals Committee as part of an academic appealLink opens in a new window. An Academic Appeals Committee will not consider mitigating circumstances reported outside the deadlines as set out by the Department unless there is an exceptional reason why the submission was not presented at the correct time, accompanied by supporting evidence.

Mitigating Circumstances Panel:

Claims for mitigating circumstances will be considered by the Mitigating Circumstances Panel. The Panel is Chaired by the Senior Tutor and membership includes the Director MRes/PhD, the Director of Graduate Studies (Taught Degrees), the Head of Department, the Deputy Head of Department (Teaching and Learning), the Director of Student Engagement and Progression, and the Programmes Manager. The Panel has the following remit:

• To considers details of applications for mitigating circumstances and makes recommendations on the outcome of each application to the Board of Examiners;
• To determine whether the circumstances submitted are acceptable grounds to grant mitigation and to grade them as rejected (R), weak/mild (A), moderate (B) severe (C);
• To ensure that decisions are equitable and that there is consistency of treatment across cohorts.

Possible Action by the Exam Board: If a claim is supported by appropriate evidence (e.g. medical evidence), the Board of Examiners may be able to exercise discretion. The Board may recommend the candidate sits (as for the first time) at the next available opportunity; or base a grade for a module on unaffected assessment marks (noting that waivers can only be applied to failed assessments with a weighting of 3 credits or less), for example. However, neither the Board of Examiners nor the Mitigating Circumstances Panel are permitted to change a module mark. It may be recommended that no action is required in terms of progress decisions, but the circumstances will be carried forward and be considered when determining the degree classification at a future meeting of the Board of Examiners.

Medical Evidence: Evidence is a vital part of a mitigating circumstances submission. It must be written by an independent qualified practitioner (letters from relatives are not acceptable); dated and written on headed or official notepaper and in English. If the letter is in another language students must provide both a copy of the original note and a certified translation into English. When requesting medical evidence to support your application for mitigation, you are advised to make clear to your doctor that the information will be shared with a number of people and to discuss with your doctor the most appropriate wording of the medical evidence.

If your submission contains confidential information and/or evidence, please submit your claim through the Tabula portal as normal but ensure you tick the box marked ‘I have sensitive information that I would prefer to show to a member of staff in person’. The Senior Tutor, Dr Mahnaz Nazneen, or Programme Manager, Carolyn Andrews, will arrange an appointment with you to discuss your submission in confidence.

Exam anxiety: exams are a stressful time for all students and hence you should expect to feel some degree of anxiety during the exam period. When taking an exam, it is not uncommon for students to feel a rising level of anxiety and to think that it is a panic attack. A panic attack during an exam will not be taken as a severe mitigating circumstance, unless:

• The Department already has evidence to confirm that you have a history of similar anxiety and panic attacks and can provide medical evidence of this panic attack;
• Significant medical evidence can be provided that documents the symptoms of the panic attack during the exam and confirms that you would have been unable to complete the exam under the circumstances.

Exam deferral and other outcomes:

If you have very severe mitigating circumstances during an exam period, we may recommend you defer the entire examination period to the next available opportunity. Please speak to the Senior Tutor you wish to request an exam deferral and then submit your request via Tabula. You can read more about the deferral of an exam period on the Mitigating CircumstancesLink opens in a new window webpages.

If you have severe mitigating circumstances, we may recommend you delay an exam and sit (as for the first time) in September or the following January/ May. Please note this is not an exam deferral, which only applies when you defer all the exams within an exam period. If you have attended your exam, we will normally assume you were fit to sit unless there is evidence that you experienced severe mitigating circumstances that you have not predicted during the exam.

Other possible actions by the Exam Board may include offering a further opportunity for re-examination, or we may recalculate a module mark based on the elements of the assessment which were not affected by the mitigating circumstances (noting that waivers can only be applied to failed assessments with a weighting of 3 credits or less). However, neither the Board of Examiners not the Mitigating Circumstances Panel are permitted to change a module mark. It may be recommended that no action is required in terms of progression decisions, but the circumstances will be carried forward and be considered when determining the degree classification at a future meeting of the Board of Examiners.

Reasonable adjustments

Long term chronic conditions (normally greater than a term in duration and that are likely to continue) and disabilities are dealt with under the reasonable adjustmentsLink opens in a new window policy. However, a significant deterioration of a permanent or chronic condition already reported and covered by alternative arrangements, is classed as a mitigating circumstance. Guidance in relation to alternative arrangements is available on the University web pages and is summarised below.

The Equality Act 2010Link opens in a new window requires the University to make reasonable adjustments where a candidate who is disabled (within the meaning of the Act), would be at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to someone who is not disabled.

• Noting ‘substantial’ is defined as ‘more than minor or trivial’ and that a disability is defined as ‘a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’;
• Students who have long term chronic conditions or disabilities and who believe they are entitled to reasonable adjustments should in the first instance contact Disability Services or Mental Health and Wellbeing and request an appointmentLink opens in a new window to discuss their support requirements;
• A reasonable adjustment may be unique to the individual and could include special examination arrangements, delayed deadlines but also alternative methods of assessments;
• Any reasonable adjustments made are evidence based; students are required to supply appropriate and recent medical evidence, or, in the case of a specific learning difference such as dyslexia or dyspraxia, a full diagnostic assessment. The type of appropriate evidence required can be discussed with Disability Services or Mental Health and Wellbeing;
• Once a student has met with Wellbeing Support Services, the adviser will contact the student's department and the Examinations Office (with their permission) to recommend any alternative exam arrangements;
• Alternative exam arrangements must be made before the annual deadlinesLink opens in a new window as set out by the Examinations Office. Recommendations that are made AFTER these deadlines will be handled under the Mitigating Circumstances Policy;
• Recommendations to apply reasonable adjustments may include for the student to be able to complete assessments via alternative assessment methods; bearing in mind that academic or professional standards in relation to core competencies and assessed criteria still need to be met;
• Further information on support for specific disabilities is available hereLink opens in a new window.

Religious Observance

If you are unable to sit an exam on a particular date because of religious observance, you must notify the Postgraduate Office by email and also the Examinations Team by completing the Religious Observance Form before the published deadline. Further information is available on the Religious ObservanceLink opens in a new window webpage.

Examination schedule and feedback

MRes examinations take place during April/early May (weeks 32 and 33). The exam rubric for each module can be found on the module webpage. April/May exam marks and feedback are only released after the June exam board. September exams are available for students who fail to pass a module at the first attempt in June. These take place end of August/beginning of September.

Good practice in exams

All of the assessment on the MRes course, (in the form of class tests and final exams) is classed as internal to the Department (i.e. outside the University examination timetable).

• Familiarise yourself with the instructions for each of your examinations and ensure that you follow them when completing your exam paper.
• Answer the correct number of questions, if you answer more than the required number the department will mark the questions in the order that they appear, up to the required number of questions in each section.
• Fill in the question numbers on the required page.
• striking out any material that is not to be read (e.g. unwanted attempts)
• writing as legibly as possible
  
• Ensure you only submit the required number of documents and in the correct format.

Other pointers for good practice in examinations, include:

• familiarising yourself with University's Examination Regulations 10.2Link opens in a new window
• familiarising yourself with the rubric beforehand and doing what the rubric asks (the rubric for each module can be found on the module webpage - it is better to use this source for accurate exam rubrics rather than using past papers, as these may be out of date)
• showing your working in mathematical/quantitative answers - enough to be awarded method marks if you get the wrong answer. In any case full marks ought not to be awarded for correct 'bottom line' answers - we are also interested in checking reasoning and understanding.

Other advice on how to tackle exams is available through these links:

• Examinations Office websiteLink opens in a new window
• Students' Union
• University Counselling Service

Use of calculators in exams

The University Regulations forbid the use of programmable calculators and any calculators which can store formulae or text in examination rooms. The Regulations also forbid you to take manufacturer’s instructions in the use of calculators into the examination room.

Bags in exam rooms

Please remember that the University’s Regulation 10.2 states that:

“Candidates are forbidden to take into the examination room any books, papers, calculators, or any information storage and retrieval device, or any attache case or bag in which such items can be carried, unless there is an express provision otherwise in the case of a particular paper. Candidates are forbidden to pass calculators or any other item to one another during examinations.”

You are reminded that you should not take any bags, cases, or rucksacks etc into the examinations rooms.

The only exceptions to this are:

1. small pencil cases may be used for pens, pencils and rulers etc
2. if necessary plastic carrier bags may be used to carry permitted texts or other material into open-book examinations (unless you have been given special individual permission to have any other kind of bag with you in connection with an approved special examination arrangement).

You are strongly recommended NOT to bring bags with you to examinations. If you do, you may not be permitted to bring them into the exam room (other than as noted under (a) and (b) above). Also you must not leave bags outside exam rooms where they may cause any kind of obstruction.

If you do bring bags into the Department on an exam day, please store them in S0.56/ S0.58 (any valuables you leave at your own risk).

Handwriting legibility policy

You are responsible for ensuring that handwritten answers in exam scripts are legible and can be read by markers.

Markers will make reasonable efforts to read scripts, and those found to be illegible will be checked by a moderator to confirm whether or not the handwriting can be deciphered. If the marker and moderator are unable to read a script it should be forwarded to the Director of the MRes/PhD for scrutiny. If the answers are still deemed illegible, the indecipherable sections will not be marked. The Programme Manager will annotate the mark grid to indicate to the Board of Examiners any scripts with illegible handwriting, to help inform the Board’s decisions about resits and borderline cases.

The Department does not allow scripts deemed illegible to be retyped following a first examination, unless there is medical evidence of mitigating circumstances that would have affected a candidate’s handwriting in exam conditions. Except for circumstances in which a disability could not have been anticipated, students should provide medical evidence for alternative exam arrangements by the deadlines set by the Academic Office.

The Department believes the onus for writing legibly should rest with students. Students with illegible handwriting who still achieve sufficient marks to pass a module will not be allowed a resit attempt. Students failing a module at the first attempt, where sections of an exam script have been found to be illegible, will normally be offered a resit opportunity. Students will be offered the chance to type their answers in the resit exam. The maximum mark which may be awarded for a module on re-examination is 50 for postgraduate modules.

Examination boards

The Board of Examiners comprises a subset of full-time members of the academic staff in the Department of Economics, members of the academic staff from other departments for joint programmes and external examiners appointed by Senate. The Board, chaired by the Director of MRes, makes recommendations that are subject to confirmation by Senate.

The external examiners are experienced senior academics from other universities whose role is to monitor our standards, to advise us on issues, including borderline cases, and generally to act as independent arbiters and scrutinisers and to ensure that the Board’s decisions are fair.

Exam board decisions

The general range of decisions available to the Board is set out below. The Assessment and Examination Scheme provides guidelines only and the Board reserves the right to exercise its discretion in individual cases.

June Exam Board

The Board will consider the progress of students in the taught component. It will determine whether the student shall:

1. Proceed to the second year of the MRes (for first year students)
2. Be permitted to submit the dissertation (for second year MRes students). Students will only be permitted to submit the dissertation when they have passed both option modules
3. Be required to be re-examined in specified modules

September Exam Board (Final)

This is the Board at which students who have completed the full requirements of the degree are considered. It will determine whether a student shall:

1. Be awarded the degree
2. Be awarded the degree with distinction or merit
3. Be permitted re-submission of the dissertation
4. Be awarded a lower qualification (as specified in the MRes examination conventions)
5. Not be awarded a qualification

Exam marks

Following the decisions of the Exam Board, you will be notified by email when exam results are viewable. We will not give out examination or assessment marks over the telephone or to any third party without your prior written permission.

We want to assure you that the marking and moderation for all our examinations is fair, consistent, robust and reliable and hence give you confidence that when you receive a mark, the mark has been arrived at following a detailed and rigorous process. All examination scripts have a first marker and a moderator and undergo an administrative check to ensure the marks have been totalled correctly. All results are considered by a Board of Examiners. Further details regarding the assessment procedures in the Department can be found on our Assessment and FeedbackLink opens in a new window webpages.

Degree certificates and transcripts

If you attend a Degree Congregation you will be presented with your certificate on stage. If you do not attend a ceremony your certificate will be posted to you or it can be collected from Student Reception (Senate House). Digital certificates will be issued in additional to hard copy certificates.

The main degree congregation for PGT students is held in January each year. The Awards & CeremoniesLink opens in a new window website provides detailed information on award certificates and degree congregation registration and includes a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section.

You can download an interim transcript from your current studentsLink opens in a new window page at any time during your course. Official TranscriptsLink opens in a new window of academic record for postgraduate taught students are produced by Student Records once your degree award has been conferred by the Senate.

Appeals

If an Exam Board decides that your performance merits the award of a lower qualification than the one for which you were registered or does not merit the award of a qualification at all, you have certain rights of appeal. Appeals must be submitted within 10 University working days of the date of notification of the decision of the Board of Examiners that is the subject of the appeal. The academic appeals process is to be completed typically within 80 University working days. Regulation 42 sets out the process for considering appeals and is available hereLink opens in a new window. You are required to complete a form if you wish to appeal against the decision of the examiners, and this can be found on the Appeals Link opens in a new windowwebsite.

The appeal procedure may not be used to challenge the academic judgement of examiners, dispute marks awarded in individual modules or pieces of work, appeal against the requirement that a student has to resubmit work or resit exams, or challenge the decision to award an MSc degree at pass level rather than with distinction or merit.

Appeals may be made on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) You are in possession of evidence relevant to your examination performance which was not available to the Board of Examiners when their decision was reached. You must provide evidence of good reason for not having made the Board of Examiners aware of this evidence prior to the assessment decision;

(b) There is evidence of procedural irregularity in the examination process; or

(c) There is evidence of prejudice or bias on the part of one of more of the examiners.

(d) There is evidence of inadequacy of supervisory or other arrangements during your enrolment at the University. In this instance, you are required to explain why a complaint under the Student Complaints Resolution ProcedureLink opens in a new window was not made at an earlier stage.

If you have any queries about appeals, please contact pgappeals@warwick.ac.uk 

Academic Integrity

What is academic integrity?

Academic integrity means committing to honesty in academic work, giving credit to the ideas of others, and being proud of our own achievements.

The Department follows the Academic Integrity FrameworkLink opens in a new window approved by the University. Students should ensure they are familiar with this framework, and with Regulation 11Link opens in a new window, which governs academic integrity at the university level.

The Department of Economics has a dedicated Academic Integrity webpageLink opens in a new window with detailed information and guidance on all aspects of Academic Integrity and Misconduct. We expect all our students to familiarise themselves with these pages.

The University also provides Moodle courses on Avoiding PlagiarismLink opens in a new window and Academic ReferencingLink opens in a new window. All students are expected to complete these.

A breach of academic integrity is called 'academic misconduct'. This term can include deliberate cheating, which Warwick's regulations define as 'an attempt to benefit oneself or another, by deceit or fraud... [including] reproducing one's own work or the work of others without proper acknowledgement'. However, a breach of academic integrity can occur, for example due to being in a rush to complete an assignment, or by not checking what’s being submitted.

Academic misconduct includes (this list is not exhaustive):

• Plagiarism. Presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, this can include the use of shared/group notes;
• Self-plagiarism. Submitting the same work (fully or partially) that you have already submitted for another assessment, unless this is permitted;
• Taking a copy of another student’s work;
• Passing someone your work to use as they see fit;
• Collusion. Working with one or more other people on an assessment which is intended to be worked on and submitted individually;
  

• Contract cheating. Where someone completes work for you, whether for remuneration or not, which is then submitted as your own (including use of essay mills or buying work online, including code);
  

• Arranging for someone else to impersonate you by undertaking your assessment or examination, in person or otherwise;

• Accessing, or attempting to access, unseen assessment materials in advance of an in-person or online examination, or to obtain or share unseen materials in advance of an in-person or online examination, or to facilitate such activities;

• Submitting fraudulent mitigating circumstances claims or falsifying evidence in support of mitigating circumstances claims (this may also be considered a non-academic disciplinary matter);

• Fabrication or falsification of research, including falsifying data, evidence or experimental results.

Academic misconduct or poor academic practice?

Warwick distinguishes between academic misconduct and poor academic practice.

Poor academic practice is less serious than academic misconduct, but should be avoided nonetheless:

 Poor academic practice is the failure to observe principles of academic integrity. It typically (but not exclusively) occurs when referencing is inadequate, but not in a way suggesting that the student attempted to gain an unfair advantage. (Regulation 11)

Poor academic practice should be used where the extent of plagiarism or other misconduct is limited. It can be used in particular at earlier stages of a student’s degree, when they might only have an imperfect understanding of the principles of academic integrity. It can be found, e.g., where a student has referenced the material used but not indicated that it is a verbatim quote. (Guidance on Regulation 11)

 There is no penalty for poor academic practice: marks are not deducted, instead work is assessed under the marking criteria  (e.g., the University Marking Scales have an implicit expectation in respect of good academic practice). (A4.2 Regulation 11)

Judgements about poor academic practice are academic judgements against which there is no appeal. (A4.3 Regulation 11)

Should poor academic practice be identified in your work, the Department will provide you with resources to help you to improve on your academic practice skills. Please also see the section on Academic Referencing further on in this section of the Handbook.

How we investigate suspected breaches of academic integrity

The Department of Economics has an established process for investigating potential breaches of Academic Integrity. Once the Academic Integrity team receives a notification of possible misconduct, the Department's Academic Integrity Lead will determine the need for further investigation and whether the student will be required to attend a meeting of the Academic Conduct Panel (ACP). Please refer to the Department's dedicated Academic Integrity webpageLink opens in a new window for further information.

In the event the investigation concerns a group work assessment, all students within the group will be asked to attend the Academic Conduct Panel, and penalties may be applied to all students within the group.

Please note that the level of proof required for suspected academic misconduct to be found proven or not proven is the civil standard ‘the balance of probabilities’; that is, on the basis of the available evidence it is more likely than not that the student committed academic misconduct.

Consequences of breaches of academic integrity

Breaches of academic integrity are quite damaging. They damage the perpetrator, who does not learn how to be an economist, but learns how to be dishonest. They damage relations between tutors and students, because it generates suspicion. They damage all students when they leave Warwick, because such misconduct cases lower the reputation of a Warwick degree, which is perceived by employers as very high. They damage academic staff, who spend time policing the rules instead of teaching and researching.

Breaches of academic integrity are regularly detected and penalised. The penalties are severe. The policies are strict even if it’s the first time your work has not met standards of academic integrity. The Department of Economics has a formalised range of penalties that we apply to cases where Academic Misconduct has been found, ranging from reductions in marks for specific parts of an assessment to up to a 100% reduction in mark for an assessment. Please refer to our dedicated webpage Link opens in a new windowfor further information.

In 2022/23, the Department investigated 328 students (across UG and PG) for possible misconduct. 136 students were called to attend Academic Conduct Panels and 118 students had penalties applied to their assessments.

Academic Referencing

It is important that you, no matter what your background is, familiarise yourself with the academic integrity approach used at Warwick. The fact that you may not have written essays before coming to this University, or that you may come from a different school system, are not acceptable excuses. You must take the initiative to ensure you have all the skills needed to produce good work as it is expected here. Bear in mind that there will be slight differences between what departments require so do not assume that the approach will be exactly the same if you are taking a module in another department.

There are numerous online resources to help you grasp proper academic referencing including the LibraryLink opens in a new window, The Centre for Student Careers & SkillsLink opens in a new window.

We also have a dedicated Economics Librarian coming to the Department regularly that is available to help and guide students in need.

If you are ever in doubt about referencing and avoiding plagiarism speak to your module leader/tutor or your personal tutor, before you submit your piece of work.

When to acknowledge sources

How to acknowledge sources

There are many possible forms of citation. The one we favour takes the form of abbreviated references in the text (rather than footnotes or endnotes) coupled with a list of references with full detail at the end. Each text reference is limited to the author's last name, date of publication, and page reference. Some examples:

(1) According to Howlett (1994, p. 3), the need for rapid mobilisation is a crucial reason why market institutions may not sufficiently adjust the allocation of resources to wartime priorities.

(2) The original application of rational expectations to macroeconomics is usually attributed to Lucas (1972).

(3) One theory argues the first industrial revolution occurred in Britain due to a unique combination of factor prices (Allen 2009).

Avoid the use of footnotes to add extra comments and asides. If what you need to say matters it should go in the main text. If it doesn’t belong in the text, leave it out. If you are required to or choose to use footnotes as the means of referencing, you should include the full reference in the footnote, as well as in the bibliography.

Creating a bibliography

Complete references belong at the end of the essay. These should contain precisely those articles and books that you cite in the text, no more and no less. In particular, markers will be alert to you including references to sources that you have not used and have only listed to make your bibliography appear larger.

Your references might comprise books, chapters, and journal articles, alphanumerically by author's last name and publication date, with the book title or journal title underlined or in italics, and article or chapter titles in quotation marks. The principle here is that it’s the library catalogue entry that gets italicised or underlined. Place of publication and publisher are optional for University coursework though not if you aspire to publishable scholarship. Note that if
you cite articles or chapters you should also give first and last page numbers. For the above examples:

Howlett, W.P. (1994). “The Wartime Economy, 1939-1945.” In Floud, R., and McCloskey, D., eds, The Economic History of Britain Since 1700. 2nd edn, vol. 3, 1-31.

Lucas, R.E. (1972). “Expectations and the Neutrality of Money.” Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 4, 103-24.

Allen, R. The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

For further guidance on reference style, consult a well-known economics journal such as the Economic Journal.

Common pitfalls in academic referencing

Citations and references can be misused. Here are some points on which to take care:

• An essay is an exercise in writing, not in using other people’s words. This means that, unless something is extremely effective, you should not quote. You can summarise the thoughts of others, but make sure that the writing is your own style. We want to know what you think.
• Do not use citations as a substitute for argument. What gives your argument authority is logic and evidence, not the number of scholars you can find who agree with you, so don't pad the bibliography with material you haven't used. It will not impress the marker. The marker does want to know that you have read widely, but to read widely without understanding benefits no one. Using large quantities of references can sometimes actually signal to the marker that you do not really grasp the topic in detail. Use references selectively as proof of your good faith as a scholar, not to batter down disagreement or bury points of difficulty.
• Only cite what you yourself have used. For example, you may read something that itself refers to another source. Thus Gordon (1998), Macroeconomics, p. 490, discussing excess volatility in aggregate consumption, refers to an article by Marjorie Flavin (1981) in the Journal of Political Economy.

Suppose the point matters to your essay. Whom do you cite: Flavin or Gordon? If you cite only Flavin it makes you look good: here’s a student who seems to have gone into the subject in depth. But you run the risk of making an inappropriate citation: you have to trust Gordon; was his purpose in making the citation really the same as yours? The correct form is “Flavin (1981), cited by Gordon (1998, p. 490)”. That makes Gordon, not you, responsible should the citation prove incorrect or inappropriate. Better still, if the point really matters, go to the original reference and read it yourself. Then you can cite it confidently without risk of being caught out.

It is particularly important to note when a table, chart, or diagram has been reused by someone you are citing. You must include the reference to the source you used but also show that the author(s) themselves took the material from someone else.

Academic Integrity Advice and Support

The University provides comprehensive guidance on academic integrity and links to resources on the Academic Integrity website.Link opens in a new window

If you have any questions on this, you should seek advice in good time from either the module leader, your module tutor, and/or your Personal Tutor. For advice on the Department's Academic Integrity Procedure, please refer to the Assistant Programmes Manager on economics.integrity@warwick.ac.ukLink opens in a new window.

There is also a an Economics Department Academic Integrity pageLink opens in a new window, where you will find detailed information and guidance.