11. Scripts, Marking and Adjudication

11.1. Marking

Marking of scripts and adjudication on the merits of candidates will proceed in accordance with the principles in this section, section 9, section 13, and the particular conventions of the examination concerned (see 6.2 above).

Particular problems may arise as follows:

(i) Illegible Scripts:  If a chair considers a script to be illegible, he or she must inform the Senior Tutor of the candidate’s college as quickly as possible. If there is a dispute between the Chair and the Senior Tutor as to the illegibility of a script or scripts, the question should be referred to the Proctors for a ruling. Chairs will need to return any illegible scripts, by hand, to the candidate’s college asking for them to be typed. The college will either make arrangements to use the Examinations and Assessments team transcription service or else will contact the Proctors for permission to type the script(s) in house. Chairs will be informed about the arrangements. The cost of the typing and invigilation shall not be a charge on the University.

(ii) Missing or incomplete scripts: If an examiner or assessor finds that a script is missing from the delivered package, or that a script is conspicuously incomplete, the chair should be notified immediately, so that a check can be initiated with the Examinations and Assessments team and other markers. The Proctors should be informed promptly if it is not found.

(iii) Scripts with inappropriate content:  Where examiners feel that the content of a candidate’s script indicates that s/he may require professional help, the chair should contact the Proctors’ Office for advice.

The scripts and submitted work of candidates whose dyslexia or other Specific Learning Difficulty has been notified through the Proctors will each have a cover-sheet advising markers of this fact and indicating in what ways the condition may have affected candidates’ written work. The scripts are to be marked as normal, but the marks-sheet should show when a candidate has a SpLD, so that this information can be considered by examiners in adjudicating on the candidate’s performance.

11.2. Standardised expression of agreed final marks

Numerical marking, which must be expressed in whole numbers for agreed final marks, will be used for both undergraduate and graduate examinations. All examination candidates will be provided with a transcript showing their final agreed marks for the individual examination papers or other examined elements of their degree course, and (for undergraduate degrees) how these marks relate to the final degree classification.

Undergraduate courses

The University requires all examiners in Honour Moderations and second public examinations to express agreed final marks for individual papers (including those for formally assessed coursework) in the following form on the basis of the following class boundaries.


70 ­- 100

First Class

60 – 69                       

Upper Second

50 – 59                       

Lower Second

40 – 49                       


30 – 39                       

Pass in Finals/Honour Mods

29 – 0



Examiners should be encouraged to use the entire range of the marking scale.

The transcript will show the final agreed marks according to the common scale and indicate the basis by which the classification is achieved. This may be on average mark alone, or may include specifications as to mark distribution (5 papers in the 2.1 class, etc.).

As Moderations and Preliminary Examinations are not classified, an amended version of this scheme is required as follows.

70 - 100

Distinction (where relevant)

40 – 69


39 – 0



Postgraduate taught courses

Following extensive consultation with divisions/Continuing Education, Education Committee has concluded that, with appropriate explanation on any accompanying transcript, two models for the award of agreed final marks within the categories of distinction, pass and fail are acceptable. Agreed final marks must be expressed in numerical form.


70 – 100


50 – 69


49 –  0 




70 – 100


60 – 69


59 – 0



An overall award of distinction may be made to candidates who have shown excellence over the whole examination. Examination conventions should make clear the rules for the award and these should normally exclude from consideration any candidate who has initially failed an assessment. Exceptionally, supervisory bodies may approve examination conventions that allow examiners to consider for distinction otherwise excellent candidates who have initially failed a minor assessment item (no more than 10%). Examination conventions should specify the element(s) that may be disregarded.

There is currently no provision for the award of a degree ‘with Merit’, other than the special provision for the First and Second BM.

11.3. Double-marking

It is University policy to use double marking to judge the performance of candidates in the Second Public Examination and all graduate level examinations, with the exception of papers with precise model solutions, or those given special permission by Education Committee to use alternative methods of marking (see below). Double marking identifies discrepancies of judgement between two markers, which must then be resolved. It is not proper to average the two marks; the markers need to identify the reasons for the difference and agree an appropriate mark. If reconciliation is difficult, a third marker should act as arbiter in agreeing the appropriate mark. Only if such academic expertise is not otherwise obtainable within the University should an external examiner be asked to act in this capacity (see section 3 above).

There must be a mechanism to verify the marking of all papers for undergraduate second public examinations and graduate examinations under the aegis of all boards, and the minimum standard must be as follows:

In the case of papers for which there is a precise model solution and marking scheme approved by the examiners for every question, each script must be marked by an examiner or assessor; and every script must be checked independently (not necessarily by an examiner or assessor) to ensure that all parts have been marked and the marks and part-marks have been correctly totalled and recorded.

For papers without a model solution,

(a)    There should be an explicit process in place to ensure that a student’s mark is not affected by relatively severe or lenient marking;

(b)    The majority of courses in the University use independent double marking for this purpose;

(c)    Alternative methods such as those used by Jurisprudence are permitted, if it can be demonstrated to Education Committee that they serve the same purpose.

Every script or dissertation must normally be identified solely by a candidate number and marked independently by two examiners or assessors (unless another marking method has been approved). Each division should have a consistent method across disciplines for reconciling the marks awarded by two markers.

Where subjects permit averaging of marks (over a narrow range) in reconciliation between markers, the system used must be clear and justifiable, and not operated to the detriment of candidates. If reconciliation is difficult, a third marker (perhaps – but not necessarily - the external examiner, see section 3 above ) should act as arbiter in agreeing the appropriate mark.

Markers should generally not write on scripts during the marking process. This can compromise the independence of the second marker. In some subjects, however, the nature of the examination answers (such as translations or calculations) may be such that it is appropriate to indicate on the script objective errors for which the mark should be reduced.  Comments should not be written on the scripts but on the mark sheets provided for the purpose. 

Under the Data Protection Act, the University is not obliged to return scripts to candidates, but is obliged, if requested, to provide a transcript of anything written on them or separately about a candidate’s performance.

11.4. Scaling of marks

Education Committee considers that it is appropriate to scale marks for a paper where it has been established that either:

(a)    a paper was more difficult or easy than in previous years, and/or

(b)    an optional paper was more or less difficult than other optional papers taken by students in a particular year, and/or

(c)    a paper has generated a spread of marks which are not a fair reflection of student performance on the University’s standard scale for the expression of agreed final marks, i.e. the marks do not reflect the qualitative marks descriptors.

In each case, examiners need to establish if they have sufficient evidence for scaling. Different considerations need to be taken into account for each of cases (a), (b) and (c).

(a) A paper was more difficult or easy than in previous years

Examiners may wish to consider scaling where a paper has a higher or lower median or mean mark for a paper relative to previous years as this may indicate that the paper was easier or more difficult than intended, especially in a core paper taken by a large cohort. However, this would not in itself constitute sufficient evidence for scaling. Scaling is not a mechanistic process but one which requires academic judgement. Further evidence should also be identified, for example, via

- examiners’ academic evaluation of the performance of the candidates (possibly guided by qualitative descriptors of each class);

- a comparison with the questions set in previous years’ papers; and/or

- an analysis of the spread of candidates’ performance in compulsory papers compared to their performance in the paper in question.

Scaling should not be used mechanistically to fit the spread of classes on a paper to historical norms (i.e. norm referencing).

(b) An optional paper was more or less difficult than other optional papers taken by students in a particular year

Again, a higher or lower median or mean mark for an optional paper relative to other optional papers would not in itself constitute sufficient evidence for this. The differences in mean or median scores of students taking different optional papers could simply be the result of natural variation in ability within the cohort of students. If the number of students taking options is small, statistical analysis (say of performance of students in optional versus compulsory papers) can be an unreliable tool.

(c) A paper has generated a spread of marks which are not a fair reflection of student performance against the University’s standard scale for expression of agreed final marks.

Boards should take all steps which they consider to be reasonable academically to set questions and mark schemes which seek to generate a spread of marks that fairly reflect the student cohort's performance compared with the University’s scale for standard expression of agreed final marks and the class descriptors set out in the course examination conventions. However, it is recognised that despite the very best efforts at the examination setting stage, an examination, particularly in a quantitative subject where there is a precise model solution and mark scheme, may not generate such a spread of raw marks. Scaling, with qualitative checks, may then be needed to translate raw marks to marks that are a fair reflection of the performance of candidates on the University scale. Again, academic judgement will be critical here.

In all cases, the general principles below must be followed by all boards of examiners when scaling is used:

(i) Scaling should only be considered and undertaken after moderation of a paper has been completed;

(ii) If it is decided that it is appropriate to use scaling, examiners should review a sample of papers either side of the classification borderlines to ensure that the outcome of scaling is consistent with academic views of what constitutes a paper in each class. External examiners should be asked to report on this stage of the process;

(iii) All scaling of marks must be done in the year in which the paper(s) in question is/are taken. This point will be particularly pertinent for subjects with second-year examinations and for supervisory bodies considering initiating such examination arrangements;

(iv) Detailed information about why scaling was necessary and how it was applied should be included in the examiners’ report;

(v) All examiners and boards should seek expert advice on the construction and operation of algorithms, where appropriate;

(vi) All algorithms used for the purposes of scaling must be transparent and justifiable, and must be published as appropriate for the information of all examiners and students.

Examiners should also satisfy themselves that, if a computer algorithm is used in the classification process, its rules are fully consistent with the current examination conventions, especially if changes are being made to the examination conventions (see Annex I: Consistency in examination conventions for further detail on examination conventions).

11.5. Comment sheets

Education Committee policy requires that comment sheets be used for all substantial assessment items. Substantial summative assessment item is understood to mean any thesis, dissertation, project report, extended essay, portfolio, research proposal, and any other summative assessment item that carries weight broadly equivalent to an unseen written exam.

Departments and faculties are encouraged to include the marking criteria on the marking sheet or book: additionally subjects may wish to offer further guidance to examiners on the coverage of their comments.

Where external examiners are asked to reach a final decision on significantly discrepant marks from the first and second markers it is essential that they are provided with sufficient comments to understand the rationale for each of the initial marks awarded. In cases where the external examiner is asked to certify the fairness of the approach used for the reconciliation of such discrepant marks, the comments provided must also describe the mechanism used by the internal examiners to reach an agreed final mark.

Section 11.13 below sets out the responsibilities of the chair of examiners in respect of the retention of the comment sheets along with other examination material. All material must be lodged with the chair, who must make arrangements for its retention for two years following the examination.

11.6. Adjudication on the merits of candidates

The chair must arrange for all examiners and assessors to report the marks for those scripts they have marked. Marks are entered against candidates’ numbers on the marks sheet, and the examiners must then be provided with complete lists of marks that will form the basis of their adjudication (assessors do not take part in the final adjudication process but may be present in an advisory capacity only – see Examination Regulations, Regulations for the Conduct of University Examinations, Part 7, cl. 7.6, www.admin.ox.ac.uk/examregs/2016-17/rftcoue-part7asse).

Attention must be paid to the accuracy of data entry into marks spreadsheets and to ensuring that any changes in the list of candidates do not lead to knock-on errors (withdrawals are the most likely changes but the reinstatement of withdrawn candidates can also happen). It is good practice to test new software on a set of dummy results before it is used in the examination.

During the process of adjudication, the scripts of all candidates should be available to the examiners as a whole. All examiners must be present at all Examination Board meetings unless prior permission has been obtained from the Proctors on the basis of exceptional circumstances – see 4.2 above.

11.7. Medical certificates and other special circumstances

Under Part 13 of the Regulations for the Conduct of University Examinations, information about medical or other circumstances affecting a candidate’s performance may be submitted by the candidate via their college. It is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that an application is made. For applications made before the final examiners’ meeting, the candidate’s college will send a completed application form (via the secure SharePoint site provided for this purpose) to the Examinations and Assessments team which will forward this to the chair, so long as the form is received by noon the day before the final examiners’ meeting.

If the candidate has missed any papers the chair should ensure that either of the following has been received from the Proctors:

•    authorisation to consider the candidate for an estimated classification (see section 11.8); or

•    notification that no such authorisation will be given.

Until one or other has been received, the candidate’s results should be marked ‘pending’; thereafter, the examiners should finalise the results accordingly.

The process for considering factors affecting performance should not be used to make complaints about the conduction of examinations, or other issues such as teaching, supervision or accommodation. If any such complaints are received by examiners they should be referred to the Proctors for consideration (see section 14).

A subset of the board of examiners should meet to discuss all information received on factors affecting performance (if necessary, in smaller departments, this may need to be undertaken by the entire board). For courses where marks are released at multiple points throughout the academic year, and for multi-part examinations, it is permissible to hold more than one of these meetings. All applications relating to the same papers should be discussed at the same meeting.

The meeting should not discuss examination scripts or marks, but should only consider the factors affecting performance applications. At this meeting each candidate’s circumstances should be considered and banded on a 1-3 scale to indicate the seriousness of the impact of the circumstances on the candidate’s performance with 1 indicating minor impact, 2 indicating moderate impact, and 3 indicating very serious impact. Examiners can adapt the proposed 1-3 scale as they regard appropriate for their subject area. Candidates who have had alternative arrangements for their examinations may also submit an application for factors affecting performance where they consider the adjustments have not fully mitigated the impact of their disability/health condition. In these cases, candidates should clearly state in the application why the approved adjustments did not fully mitigate the impact. Examiners should consider all the evidence for this, and the banding should take into account the impact of the alternative arrangements.

Examiners should also determine whether all or a subset of papers have been affected. A formal note should be kept of these decisions. The banding information should be used at the final meeting of examiners to adjudicate on the merits of candidates. Annex C: Consideration of medical and other special circumstances in examination and assessment provides further information on the courses of action open to examiners and the detailed procedures to follow.

Examiners should not give consideration to a candidate’s special circumstances if no application for factors affecting performance has been received. This includes giving further consideration to a candidate who has had alternative arrangements for an assessment if no factors affecting performance application relating to the insufficiency of the alternative arrangements has been made.

Information received by the Examinations and Assessments team after noon on the day before the final examiners’ meeting, and which cannot be sent to the chair of examiners in time for the meeting, will be sent to the Proctors. The Proctors will only forward medical or other information to the chair if one of the following criteria is met:

•    The candidate’s condition was such as to prevent them from making an earlier submission;

•    The candidate’s condition was not known or diagnosed until after the final meeting of the examiners;

•    There has been a procedural error that has prevented the candidate’s information from being submitted.

As the use of information about candidates’ special circumstances is increasingly the subject of query or complaint, boards are asked to keep a brief, formal note confirming that special circumstances information has been taken into account where an application has been received under Part 13, and indicating the outcome. Further guidance on reporting, including a template for decisions, is provided in Annex C: Consideration of medical and other special circumstances in examination and assessment. Information from the template will be used to give candidates a brief summary of the impact their application for factors affecting performance has had on their results.

Records relating to factors affecting performance decisions should be retained with material pertaining to the marking of the exam, and not with the exam scripts. The records should be kept in accordance with the policy set out in section 11.13.

11.8. Incomplete examinations

If a candidate does not complete an examination, under Examination Regulations, Regulations for the Conduct of University Examinations, Part 13, cl. 13.5 (www.admin.ox.ac.uk/examregs/2016-17/rftcoue-p13fapianexam), the Proctors can:

•    Authorise examiners to examine the candidate at another place or time under such arrangements as they deem appropriate. Or, if the candidate has already submitted sufficient other work, to act as if he or she had completed the part of the University examination which he or she was unable to attend, and to award an estimated classification; or use the words ‘declared to have deserved Honours’ in the case of a classified degree if the examiners are unable to classify the candidate but none the less judge that the candidate would have obtained Honours if he or she had been able to complete the examination; or else fail the candidate.

•    In the case of a pass/fail degree, the examiners must consider whether the candidate has submitted sufficient work of sufficient merit for them to judge whether it is appropriate to award a Pass.

Where a candidate has missed one or more papers in a First Public Examination, chairs will be instructed to examine the candidate during the Long Vacation, i.e. when they would normally provide re-sits if a candidate had failed.

11.9. Use of vivas

Examiners (and, if invited, an assessor) may examine a candidate viva voce in a University examination only where the specific regulations make provision for the use of vivas. Examiners should be clear as to the purpose of a viva voce examination, for example it should not be used as a means of assessing suspicions about possible plagiarism, which should be referred directly to the Proctors.

If examiners, following Examination Regulations, intend to call some or all candidates for a viva voce examination, the dates should be included as accurately as possible in the chair’s circular to candidates early in the year of the examination. When examiners have retained the option of vivas, any request from a candidate for dispensation from the possibility because it conflicts with travel or vacation plans will be refused; the Proctors may, however, seek from the chair an indication of the probability of a viva voce examination, so that the candidate may judge the risk involved in travelling at the specified date. Remote attendance at a viva voce for an undergraduate or postgraduate taught examination (e.g. via videoconferencing) is not permitted. If examiners are certain that they will not hold vivas at all, this can be communicated to candidates. A viva need not be held on a failing candidate if it is not specified in the requirements of the course and the failure is beyond any margin of doubt.

When examiners call candidates for viva voce examinations, the conduct of the viva should be sufficiently formal to ensure fairness of treatment for all candidates examined in this way.  Notes must be kept of the questions asked, together with an indication of the level of response, and assessment made at the time. This material must be given to the chair of examiners (see 11.12 concerning the Data Protection Act).

11.10. Sharing information between examiners

Marks should be transported between examiners and assessors and the chair or relevant administrative officer by hand, sent by Special Delivery, or transmitted via an authorised additional verification WebLearn site. They should not be sent electronically unless encrypted. Advice on the encryption and decryption of marks sheets may be obtained from IT Services. No electronic transmissions should be made without previously informing the Proctors. WebLearn additional verification is available to aid boards of examiners in sharing marks and submitting marks to the chair, and the chair should contact the Examinations Manager to discuss applying to set up a site and the practicalities of implementation.

Any exception to these rules must be agreed in advance by the Proctors, who will need to be convinced (taking technical advice if necessary) that it will cause no breach in security.

It is not good practice to use e-mail as a method of communicating between examiners about examination matters. The condensed style of e-mail communication is open to ambiguity and can give rise to errors. Examiners should note that e-mail communications about individual students would be disclosable under the Data Protection Act. 

11.11. Transparency and confidentiality

What can be disclosed?

The University takes the view that all agreed marks awarded should be disclosed to students, because of the educational value of feedback on assessed work. Evidence of recent medical problems etc. should have been considered by this stage in the process (see Annex C: Consideration of medical and other special circumstances in examination and assessment). Degree classification will continue to be a matter for boards in accordance with their examination conventions using the complete set of standardised marks. 

What is confidential?

Subject to section 11.12 below, it is University policy that examiners’ comments, examination scripts and raw marks (i.e. the marks from individual examiners before agreement or reconciliation) are strictly confidential and in no circumstances may be shown to or discussed with anyone other than examiners or properly appointed assessors. Details of the discussions at examiners’ meetings are equally confidential. Apart from the chair, only authorised administrative staff may process the entry of marks and otherwise assist in the handling of information.

11.12. Data Protection Act – Right of access to personal data

The Data Protection Act entitles an individual to make a subject access request in order to obtain a copy of any personal data held about them. Personal data is any information that relates to an identifiable individual, including information about their performance in an examination such as marks and examiners’ comments.

All subject access requests submitted to the University are processed centrally by the Information Compliance team in the Council Secretariat. Under no circumstances should examiners, assessors, or administrative staff respond to direct requests for disclosure of information relating to the examination. Those wishing to make such a request should be advised to contact the Information Compliance Team in the Council Secretariat at data.protection@admin.ox.ac.uk. Alternatively, they may submit their request via the online shop, which will forward it automatically to the Information Compliance Team. A fee of £10 is payable.

The right of subject access under the Data Protection Act means that students may access information that is otherwise treated as confidential. By making such a request a student may obtain all personal data generated as part of the examination process, including:

•  all marks held, including raw marks;

•  copies of markers’ comments on their work;

•  (if identifiable separately from other individuals) comments recorded about their performance, whether by name or candidate number, in material presented to or in the minutes of examiners’ meetings; and

•  any other information relating to their performance, such as information about medical problems.

However, due to a specific provision in the Data Protection Act, examination scripts are exempt from this general right of access, although a student is still entitled to any marks or comments recorded in the margins of a script.

It should be noted that when responding to a subject access request for exam-related information, the Information Compliance team redacts the names of examiners in order to preserve the anonymity of the examination process. For the same reason, the team will also transcribe any handwritten comments, although may need to ask individual examiners to do this where the handwriting is not legible.

11.13. Retention of records

Supervisory bodies should ensure that all examiners acting on their behalf are aware of the Proctorial requirements relating to the retention of records.

The Data Protection Act requires that personal data should not be kept for longer than is necessary to meet the purpose for which it is being processed. In the light of this, the Proctors instruct the examiners, once the examination is complete and the final list produced, to do the following as regards retention of records:

Hard copy records

•  Each examiner and assessor, including external examiners, should hand over to the chair of examiners all material in their possession pertaining to the marking of the exam. This includes mark sheets, mark books, and notes on individual written answers and on vivas. They must sign a declaration that they no longer have such material in their possession.

•  The chair of examiners should retain these records, and records relating to the adjudication of candidates, including records of those scripts which were remarked or on which the external examiner’s advice was sought, and the outcome; all medical evidence including a note, which must be countersigned by external examiner(s), of any actions taken in reaching the final marks and degree results; the declarations of examiners. All this material must be deposited with the nominated administrative officer and retained for two years. Duplicates and confidential waste must be destroyed (this means shredded, not put intact in a bin).

•  Appeals against final results are normally only possible within 3 months after the publication of results, although it is prudent to keep all records for two years. Records should not be destroyed if an appeal to the Proctors is in progress.     

•  If, during an examination itself or during classification of results, any automated processing or weighting of results takes place, the chair should be able to provide a formal statement that explains the logic behind any such processing. If an assessment itself is based partly on automated means (e.g. multiple choice tests) which form only a part of a larger assessment, the procedure for combining different sets of marks should be available.

•  The above arrangements apply to each completed examination (including the previous parts of a multi-part FHS). In a multi-part examination, scripts and other submitted work, and notes on performance, must be retained (for consideration by the following year’s examiners) until all parts of the examination are complete.

•  It remains the University’s policy that results (i.e. the final marks that have been agreed, scaled and moderated) should be made available to candidates through their colleges (and via the student record system) at the end of the examination process. As indicated in section 11.11 above, raw marks should not be disclosed to colleges or candidates.

Computer records

Items which it is necessary to retain in electronic form include only such data to which there would be no objection to a candidate’s having access, including his or her final class and agreed marks on individual papers. This data should be retained for two years after the final examiners’ meeting. These provisions have particular implications for chairs of examiners in Schools with multiple parts. In these cases, records should be retained for two years after the final examiners’ meeting for the final part.

Data from the examination may be kept in electronic form for subsequent purposes (e.g. evaluating proposed changes in examining procedures, such as changes in paper weightings) beyond the time limit mentioned above provided the information is depersonalised or does not contain items that should not be divulged (such as raw marks).

11.14. Records for the future

The nominated administrative officer should retain copies of all the agreed marks, and any notes relating to them, for two years after the final meeting. This is necessary in order to deal with examination queries and complaints, and to handle cases in which candidates carry forward their marks in the written papers to the following year, for example, when resubmitting only their dissertations.

Outgoing chairs should keep records for the assistance of future chairs on matters such as special problems encountered and arrangements made with the Head of Examinations and Assessments. The records should take the form of a chair’s book, which can be passed on each year. It is very important that chairs transmit to their successors any medical certificates and ongoing permissions (i.e. in relation to SpLD arrangements) for candidates likely to be resitting the examination, or any element of it. Reports are available via the SITS student record system of all approved alternative arrangements. It is preferable if these materials are deposited with a member of the Faculty/Departmental administrative staff who will arrange for onward transmission.

11.15. Security, deposit and retention of scripts/submissions

Scripts and other examination submissions in the possession of examiners and assessors must be locked away, particularly before they have been marked.

Faculties and departments are now permitted to retain scripts and submissions, rather than being required to store these in the Examination Schools, if they can provide suitable storage space. Scripts/submissions can still be stored in the Examination Schools script store if preferred, but will be destroyed six months after the publication of results.

Scripts and submissions sent to the Examination Schools should be packaged securely in boxes, clearly labelled with the name of the examination and the term and year, with the course code/paper numbers and in candidate number order. In the event of a student intermitting, or submitting an appeal or complaint, the department will be required to retrieve and retain the candidates’ work; therefore storage labelling and records should facilitate easy retrieval. Faculties and departments choosing to store scripts/submissions locally should follow similar procedures as appropriate. 

In the case of multi-part examinations, scripts/submissions sent to the Examination Schools will be retained until six months after results are released for the final part of the examination. If scripts and submissions are being sent to the Examination Schools script store, the Head of Examinations and Assessments should be informed of such cases and the scripts must be clearly marked (e.g. ‘TO BE RETAINED FOR PART II’). Faculties and departments storing their own scripts/submissions should retain scripts/submissions for multi-part examinations in the same way. 

Faculties and departments are now responsible for locating and storing all scripts and submissions for candidates who have (a) intermitted for a period of time having completed some summative assessment, or (b) made a complaint or appeal to the Proctors or who have received a completion of procedures letter following an application to Education Committee. The Proctors’ Office will now notify the relevant faculty or department on receipt of a complaint or appeal, requesting that all of the papers completed by the candidate in that academic year should be located and retained by the faculty/department. Similarly, officers in Education Policy Support will notify the relevant faculty/department if a student has received a completion of procedures letter following an application to Education Committee.Once the investigation of the complaint or appeal is complete, the Proctors’ Office will provide a date for destruction that is two years after the completion date of the investigation of the appeal or complaint or the predicted completion date of the student’s course, whichever is the longer.

Scripts retained as a result of this process must be stored within faculties/departments as there are no facilities at Examination Schools or the Proctors’ Office for long-term storage. Scripts must be stored securely and shredded when the date for destruction has passed.

Full guidance on retaining and storing scripts is available from the Exams and Assessments website at www.admin.ox.ac.uk/aad/exams/services.

After the release of the results for the examination, copies of theses that are required to be deposited at the Bodleian Library should be delivered to the Head of Examinations and Assessments, who will record them and arrange delivery. Where a board requires a candidate to make minor corrections to a thesis before deposit at the Bodleian Library, the candidate should submit the revised version to Examinations and Assessments and not directly to the Bodleian Library. Where theses are deposited with another library (e.g. in the department), chairs should make the necessary arrangements.