Anonymous marking- the truth behind the candidate number
Revealed for the very first time the ways that universities GCSE and A-level exam boards can falsify your exam results without your knowledge
Hiding the truth by Sheffield university.
Here is an email from the Steel Press (University of Sheffield Union of students
newspaper) editor to me after they interviewed me about my own case.
“I'm really sorry but the steel press can't run that story
I wrote. Everyone at the
steel press has been talking about it and it has gotten around to the chancellor
who has said if we print the story he will shut the steel press down.”
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Part of that information is revealed here.
Although this website is lengthy it is designed to be a resource guide to all interested parties for campaigning purposes. Please spread the word far and wide.
 |
What this website is all about
This website shows why there is a need for anonymous marking, the flaws of the anonymous marking system that was present when I was a student. It shows how it failed to protect me, the failings of anonymous marking. What I also show is a better system.
The government is very keen to get people to go to university. During my search for information for this article I have inspected several university prospectuses. For some reason no university prospectus mentions the issues discussed on this site. No prospectus mentions that they may (or may not) have staff who can abuse the power to hinder your progress and if they do the university takes no action against them.
There is information that I hope all bodies representing students can use to gain fairer marking and a better appeals system. The information here is material that Sheffield university has tried to stop coming out publicly.
The National Union of Students is campaigning on the issue of anonymous marking campaign
|
Under a system of anonymous marking candidates’ names are supposedly not meant to be visible to examiners. Candidates are meant to put an anonymous candidate number on them so in theory the examiners don’t know who the candidate is. This website shows the flaws in the system.
|
Why is there a need for anonymous marking?
In the absence of anonymous marking those with non-white names are likely to get up to 12% lower marks according to the National Union of Students this may well occur at GCSE and A level as well. I am sure that there may well be such bias against female students. When I was a medical student I remember one consultant openly telling us that he hated female doctors and most of all female medical students. I dread to think what would happen if he was an examiner.
The system where students are marked by name is not even in the least bit remotely transparent and is open to abuse. Yet anonymous marking has all the defects of the marking by name system..
|
Sadly it does.
I can see students of white origin- especially in medicine is “what evidence do you have of racism or examiner bias? It doesn‘t exist.”
Undergraduate education in courses allied to medicine takes
place in the NHS.
Well consider the words of Sir John Blofield QC the high court judge “the
NHS is riddled with institutional racism” is damning.
It is also pertinent to note that these very same people will be examining candidates at all levels. A student in such an environment will be the most vulnerable given that they are the most junior.
Click here to see some of the evidence.
Is it any wonder that ethnic minority students in courses allied to medicine there are disproportionate failure rates? When I was a student at Sheffield this was common.
|
It isn’t in a university’s interests to fail people on purpose.
I can also see students, especially in medicine, saying that it isn’t in the interests of a university to fail a student on purpose. It is always, without exception, in the interest of the university that students should pass exams. People who engage in discriminatory practices are contravening the university’s interests and add their colleagues workload. Unfortunately the link between knowledge and behaviour is not always so obvious. If it were so, then no person would ever smoke, take drugs etc. For example how many doctors smoke?
What is written in this site is partially based on my experiences
at Sheffield university. It may (or may not) be possible that similar things
have happened at other universities. In July 2003 the Times Higher ran a story
called Almost 40% fail to comply with race laws
http://www.thes.co.uk/search/story.aspx?story_id=93359
It is not just in medicine where racism/bias can occur. On 24 November 2000 the Steel Press Issue 36, 24th November 2000 ran a story called Racist Slur Exposed. This article described how Sheffield university law lecturer Margaret Wilkie was accused of marking derogatory and offensive reference to black people twice in lectures. The Steel Press had heard a tape in which she made a remark about a “nigger” and referred to Nigeria as a White man’s grave.
Note that people like Wilkie may assess students.
|
Embarrassment if universities don’t follow it
The fact that some institutions have it is an admission of bias. Firstly there is the issue of the Commission for Racial Equality investigation into Sheffield University School of medicine- click here to see it. The Times Higher article Minority medics probe is here.
I was the whistleblower. At the time I was a medical student at Sheffield university. I would ask that the reader reads this story as it is damning.
There is a pertinent quote from the CRE in their letter saying “ (Mr. Page, the undergraduate dean) states that the medical school does not monitor failure rates but seems to have a belief, (possibly divine) that their procedures are free and fair from racial bias.”
Although Mr. Page said that multiple choice papers are marked by computer and there is no scope for examiner bias. It is very easy to programme a computer to downgrade a particular student’s marks.
This website shows some of my experiences there.
The other thing I exposed at Sheffield university that the authorities didn’t like was the scandal of medical students internally examining anaesthetised women without consent.
Here is a letter from a consultant gynaecologist to me. I wrote to him saying that at the time
“"Thank you very much for your letter of 30 November 1996 and I am glad you enjoyed your attachment with us. I have no knowledge whatsoever of any patient taking legal action against me because a medical student examined her but it is nice to know that you obtained consent (which in my opinion in any case is not necessary.)”
|
The factors affecting student exam performance.
The universities academics will all say that there is only one factor that determines a student’s performance- the amount of work that they have done.
(From Medical Student Stress- Sushant Varma)
Most of these are obvious
The Candidate
Knowledge.
Understanding
Handwriting- clearly if your handwriting is unreadable the examiners can’t
mark it.
Exam technique
Ability to think logically
Mitigating circumstances
Stress
Confidence
Support from friends and family
The Teaching body
Teaching, both quality and quantity
Formative assessment (see below).
This is essential for education to occur (see
here) for the benefits.
Pastoral care - tutorial system and back up support (This is also related to
the way the examining body give back results)
Feedback on performance
The examining body
Examiner prejudice
Examiner subjectivity
Procedural errors
Mistakes
Organisation
(Both Organisation and mix ups have been highlighted by the Scottish exam boards
GCSE exam fiasco.)
Fixed marking scheme
The method of giving results. Traditionally in medicine pass and fail lists
are put on up a notice board by name. This humiliates the candidate who has
failed. This can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.
Formative assessment is essential for education to occur. Here are further benefits.
The Benefits of formative assessment (From Rolfe and McPherson April 1995)
It assists students to evaluate their knowledge and understanding, practice their skills and consolidate their learning.
It assists students to define the expectations of their teachers, including the level of competence required.
It assists students to identify individual strengths and weakness without incurring academic penalty.
It provides opportunities for rapid feedback and action to remedy student deficiencies.
It assists teachers to evaluate and modify their coursework and teaching.
It assists teachers to recognise student progress and achievement.
It encourages interaction between staff and students.
In addition it can even help identify students who are having problems whether they be personal or academic if a "blip" occurs in the standard of work submitted
If the marks from formative assessment are recorded then there are two additional benefits.
It can be used to measure the progress of the student throughout the academic year.
In cases of where students have mitigating circumstances at the end of year exams then it is easier to for the examining department to grant a pass mark knowing how the student has done throughout the year.
In my view any university department that doesn’t have sufficient formative assessment is being negligent.
This is an extract from an email from David Newble- Professor
of Medical Education at Sheffield to me “Students need good feedback and
this is best done using ways which are specifically designed for this purpose
and at a time which enables them to do something about it. Such assessments
we call formative
and their main value is to the student. We do not have enough of
them and I hope we will do more in this regard during our curriculum
changes.”
|
Our examining processes are fair
Firstly let me rebut the universities arguments saying that their marking is fair.
|
The
Universities will no doubt say “we have independent external examiners
As part of a national system, all institutions use External Examiners to assist
them in monitoring the standards of all of their degrees except those granted
on an honorary basis. External Examiners are so called because they act as Examiners
(alongside other examiners appointed from among the staff of the University)
and, because they are from outside the University, can provide an objective
view to the nature and standards of the assessment of students. They are appointed
to act as independent and impartial advisors providing informed comment on the
standards set and student achievement in relation to those standards and to
standards of comparable institutions elsewhere.
The main duties of an External Examiner are: to verify that standards are appropriate for the course(s) concerned; to assist institutions in the comparison of academic standards across higher education degrees and parts of degrees; and to ensure that their assessment processes are fair and are fairly operated and are in line with the institution's regulations.
This website will show the flaws of the external examiner system. Were these external examiners- Professor Mortimer from Hull University, Professor Mindham from Leeds and Connell from Glasgow acting independently in my case?
Mortimer falsely accused me of being a drug taker on the basis of my exam papers. Click here
Mindham was just as bad. For my firm (attachment) assessment there were four criteria, each of equal weighting. Using the consultants marks I got a mark of 60%. (According to departmental regulations that is a mark of distinction.) He downgraded two of the criteria, failing a project. Despite that it still came to 50%. The project he failed went on to be published.
He had the arrogance to still recommend that I be failed.
Would the same have happened to a white student?
Connell was equally as bad. If he had ensured that the proper procedures had been followed then I would never have failed my finals in November 2000.
As well as that external examiners could be just as biased. They are paid by the universities. If they don’t do what the course tutor wants then they won’t be asked to be external examiners again.
As such they will lose their fees for doing this.
Later on I will give some detail on Professor Weetman. When I interviewed Weetman he was an external examiner for Cambridge University.
|
The universities will also say that there are appeals processes.
This is the process by which a student who has done less well in an assessment than he/she feels he/she deserves. When I was a student you would have to send a letter to the dean within 10 days of getting the result outlining your reasons. The dean would then decide if you had a case or not. Under such a system you could appeal on two grounds, mitigating circumstances and academic irregularities. Academic irregularities basically meant something had gone wrong in the way the assessment had taken place. If you had failed on more than one occasion and your appeal was unsuccessful then you would face a review committee (also known as a review board.)
You can’t appeal on the grounds of examiner bias because of the myth of the “anonymous marking” system. For some reason at postgraduate level you can appeal on the grounds of examiner bias but at undergraduate level you can’t.
The problem here is that you write to the dean. As this website will show the dean will always back his own colleagues to the hilt. You don’t get a hearing and you don’t get to see your papers. In effect you are shooting in the dark.
In some circumstances you may face a review panel.
|
If you had failed an exam on more than one occasion then a student would face a Faculty Student Review Committee (FSRC) You would have four options. To withdraw from the university, to make a submission by letter, to attend in person or to do nothing. Of course you could make a submission by letter and attend in person.
Basically the course tutor would put his/her evidence forward in a statement, which you would receive about a week before the hearing-typically at a weekend to make sure you worried over a weekend. You would be given some time in which to respond. At the hearing the course tutor would put the case forward- in my experience they lie through their teeth. The committee would ask the course tutor questions. You would then put your case forward. The committee could then ask you questions. They’d then ask you to leave the room and they’d make their decision.
The FSRC had four options
To allow you to proceed unconditionally
To proceed with certain conditions
To be allowed another attempt
To exclude the student
Usually if the course tutor recommended another attempt you’d be granted one. If the course tutor did not then you would be excluded.
If you were excluded then the student had the right to appeal to the senate.
In my experience they are nothing but pre-determined kangaroo courts unless you manage to have the means to fight back- not many have the means to do this. If you face such a review you need a lawyer. When I was a student I was told that they occur most commonly in the medical faculty and it was the non white students who were the most frequently called students. Educational lawyers are hard to come by. The British Medical Association has a contract deal with Irwin Mitchell. Some branches if Irwin Mitchell have educational lawyers.
|
The fundamental difference between the appeals process and the review process.
The student review procedure is more open and fair than the appeals process however there is a fundamental difference. The appeals process is initiated by the student. The student review procedure is initiated by the university. A student review does have the power to recommend a change in the examination mark to the board of examiners. You also get a hearing with student review. You don’t with the appeals process.
The dispute at Sheffield- did the “anonymous marking” system protect me? A case study.
Click here to open this article in a new window
|
The drawbacks of “anonymous marking” unless papers are returned.
If you read the above site you will see that at the time Sheffield university had an anonymous marking system in place but there are drawbacks.
Forgetting your anonymous number
At some universities students have to write their university registration number on their examination scripts. The problem here is some people forget what it is. At some institutions it is on your student union card. I must digress and tell you of one occasion. A housemate of mine (who will remain nameless) went to an exam starting at 0930. At 0925 I noticed that she had left her union card that had her registration number on behind. By this stage she would have been in the exam room. I had to rush down to the exam centre myself go to the exam room and tell the invigilator who gave my housemate her card so she could put her number on.
In the horrific stress of an exam it is very easy to forget to take your registration number. This logically brings me to the next point.
|
I have a taped interview with Professor Weetman (during my research year) who told me that students don't always put their anonymous numbers of their papers. Sometimes you get bank account numbers, Switch cards, visa numbers, mobile phone numbers, even passport numbers have been used. He actually said “You won’t believe what we get.”
At first I didn’t believe him so I checked. It proved to be correct. The best I ever saw was a student who put the serial number of his television set!
People don’t normally forget their names and I think people
should get a mark for putting their names on their papers!
|
It is very easy to flout.
For example Dr Peters (then undergraduate course tutor in psychiatry and now undergraduate dean of Sheffield university school of medicine) would openly admit to having the list of names and numbers before the papers were marked. He would insist that you wrote your names on your papers and openly call it a “silly system.” He would do this openly, with impunity and with the university’s full knowledge. When I met Mr. Page (then undergraduate dean) on 23 October 1997 he admitted that Peters was flouting anonymous marking.
Ironically one week later Page wrote a letter to Richard Allan MP saying that the medical school adhered to the “anonymous marking” system- he knowingly misled the MP.
Ironically at a student review hearing the flouting was brought out. The chair Professor Woods the dean said “Although this is an academic review I have to remind everyone here that anonymous marking is not discretionary. Anonymous marking is a mandatory part of the university regulations and must be observed in all written examinations at this university. The faculty of medicine is unusual in that we have clinical exams and vivas that are conducted face to face and therefore cannot be anonymous. However the rule of anonymous marking applies. There are no exceptions to this rule. I do not want to have to repeat myself about this matter again.”
When I did psychiatry in my group of 61 students 11 were of ethnic minority. Of the 9 students who had to do a repeat clinical exam (where there is no anonymity) 8 were of foreign background. When Mr. Webster from the Commission for Racial Equality wrote to me he was very concerned about obstetrics and Gynaecology and paediatrics. However when I told him of Peters he was very concerned. Peters is now undergraduate dean. At the resit Dr Peters told us he had been asked by the university not to mark the papers as there were allegations of racial bias. Despite that he still marked the papers and flouted “anonymous marking.”
Indeed when I did my final Objective Structured Clinical Exam we had to give stickers to the examiners. Here is a copy of mine:
SUSHANT VARMA
922073201
GROUP O
START AT STATION 6
This is a clear violation. Just as I walked out of the exam Dr Peters walked in. Why was he there? He had no legitimate reason and he could easily have had access to my papers.
Are others doing the same now? Will others do the same if this system is brought in? From the experience of being in lectures with Dr Peters it is very easy to intimidate students into this.
|
As stated in the above website although Mr. Page said "any academic member of staff with a will to identify the name of an individual form their registration number could do so but when faced with having to mark nearly 200 or so scripts to a tight deadline would waste time doing so." He did not mention the useless confidentiality flap nor the fact that not every examiner would mark 200 scripts. The question is what about students on courses where there are not so many students? On top of that what about resits where there are very few students? In medicine there are a disproportionate number of ethnic minority students at resits. Given that scripts would be put in numerical order it would be very easy to find them.
|
Singling out individual students
Worse still I have seen cases where individual students have been singled out. What they used to do in Sheffield was during the exam you would have to fill in a yellow slip which would have your desk number, registration number and your name. If someone was so motivated they could in theory come to your exam room, find what desk you were at, look for the registration number and then trace your papers. This actually did happen to a friend of mine.
From a personal perspective in this case under my advice this person rang the Vice Chancellor after being victimised. Inadvertently she mentioned my name. When she did the VC’s assistant went very quiet.
When I did psychiatry I was singled out and I was the only candidate as such the examiners knew who I was. Where is the anonymity?
|
Some universities use the secure confidentiality flap system (see www.anonymousmarking.co.uk). While this system is a step (but only a step) in the right direction when I was a student it was next to useless as it was impossible to seal down. Even if such a system is brought in there is no guarantee that the examiner won‘t open up the flap himself. Unfortunately there are unscrupulous examiners who will do this (although the number is not known). However even with such a system it is still open to abuse for reasons described on this website. There is also the issue of an unscrupulous examiner recognising a particular student’s handwriting.
Indeed I remember in one course the course tutor admitted to me that they would open up the flap before marking. Then again the confidentiality flaps we had were useless. However if your university uses such a system then tape it down.
I do accept that at the end of the day marks have to be allocated to candidates. What I would say is that the marking of examination papers should be done under strict supervision in exactly the same way as candidates sit exams. Then and only then can the flaps be opened by a non-academic and when the examiner has left the room.
|
The way round anonymous marking that they don’t want you to know about.
At Sheffield University they admit to a flaw on the website The full text is here as it is possible that they may change the website.
i. School of Medicine
• Information linking students’ registration numbers
to students’ names is retained by the School’s administrators only
until the whole marking process is complete.
• The examination scripts to be marked by each examiner are sorted by
numerical order of the student registration numbers by the School’s administrators.
The scripts are then given to the examiner along with a mark sheet for completion
listing the students’ registration numbers in the same numerical order.
• Mark sheets are returned the School’s administrators who will
put them into the master spreadsheet which will identify students by both their
names and registration numbers once all the marks are available for discussion
by the examining board.
Here there is an obvious flaw. The numerical order of candidate number increases by increments of one. However for obvious reasons the list of students is kept alphabetically. The following will illustrate: (you may recognise these names)
Montgomery Burns 123456
Kent Brockman 123457
Ned Flanders 123458
Barney Gumble 123459
Reverend Lovejoy 123460
Nelson Muntz 123461
Lisa Simpson 123462
Seymour Skinner 123463
Clancy Wiggum 123464
Therefore if you wanted to identify a particular student it would not be difficult no matter what Mr. Page said in his letter to Richard Allan MP. It is very easy for an academic to find a list of candidates by name. If an examiner wanted to fail Ned Flanders all he would need to do (assuming that the scripts had been placed in numerical order) get the 3rd paper deliberately downgrade the marks and unless the papers were returned nobody would ever know. For 200 or so candidates it is a simple job to find what would be the numerical appearance of a script in the pile of scripts to be marked.
That said it is just as easy for an administrator to put a post it note on any student who they want to deliberately downgrade. After marking all that is needed is to remove the post it note and nobody would ever know.
This reminds me of an incident when I did paediatrics. I was at the Sheffield Children’s Hospital and some student coursework had been submitted for speech science students. An academic had to mark some coursework that only had the anonymous number on it. However I noted that each piece of coursework had a post it note with the student’s name on it. I was horrified at that. If only I had a camera!
Because of the actions of lecturers at Sheffield I had to repeat a year. As such have a look at this
Sushant Varma 921234567 (showed that I started in 1992)
A Aardvark 951234568 (showed that this person started in 1995)
The issue here is that such a person’s script could in theory be the first on the pile of scripts to be marked if they are to be kept in numerical order. As such it would have been very easy to single out anyone in that position.
ii. Department of Law
• Students are asked to identify their work using their registration number
upon submission.
• Examiners are provided with a disk which contains a list of the students’
registration numbers alongside which marks should be input.
• The disks containing the marks are returned to the department’s
administrative staff to be downloaded into the master spreadsheet of marks,
which will also identify students by name as well as registration number.
Again the same would apply.
This is not limited to Sheffield. Here is an extract from the University of Manchester website. Click here to see the original website.
It is very easy to see how the same could occur.
|
Even with “anonymous marking” there are scope for errors as the following will show.
Jack Sanders 123456789
Jacky Sanderson 123456790
Jane Sellers 123456791
John Smith 123456792
June Snape 123456793
(These are fake characters)
Note the initials and the similarity in number. It is easy to see how they could get marks mixed up. In the case of ethnic minority students it is even easier to make mistakes. It is ironic that the system that is supposed to protect against bias can actually lead to mistakes and possibly allegations of bias.
The other thing that examiners can do is just to ignore certain parts of the script. If they are not marked then they can’t allocate marks and that way the student can be downgraded. If anything happens they have an excuse.
The A-level crisis where examination papers were wrongly marked highlighted this problem when students exam results got mixed up or wrongly marked.
Here are some such articles
Exams body admits results error - 3 October 2001
Wrong test results for 14-year-olds - 1 October, 2002
Students' angry A-level e-mails - 2 October 2002
Students in A-level exam blunders - 14 June 2002
A-level results missing - 14 August 2003
School's A-levels wrongly marked - 5 May 2005
If there has been a mistake the first person who will notice will be the student-see the Student BMJ article.
When such articles are published I always get a terrible feeling of “I told you so!”
|
Monitoring of failure rates by disadvantage group
Although the CRE were very concerned about the lack of monitoring of exam failure rates the question of “Who does the monitoring?” arises. If you see the website on the CRE investigation or the solicitor‘s letter about Sheffield university then you will see what I mean. If you read the solicitor’s letter then would you let Weetman do the monitoring or at least have a hand in it?
|
The ultimate solution to the problem
The best solution is to scrap anonymous marking but to unconditionally return examination scripts back once marked- most of the arguments are here.
The main advantages are
Feedback . A student regardless of academic level cannot be expected to change or improve if they don’t know where they have gone wrong in the past and simply receiving a grade is not sufficient for this purpose. It is fundamental to the learning process that the student has a model answer and/or feedback comments to take home go over his/her work and learn from it.
It protects the examiner against allegations of bias- anonymous marking is a myth.
If there has been a mistake it is easier to sort out. This is explained in the Student BMJ article. However I remember when I was at school. In a geography exam (30 students) the school hadn’t added the marks up properly. The pupil concerned added his marks up properly. After doing this his marks went up by 20%.
If you have failed it is easier to accept.
This also has numerous other benefits that are not in the Student BMJ article.
It simplifies the appeals process. If you see the letter from my solicitor to the University you will see they manipulated procedures to suit themselves.
You will see that numerous times I appealed but the appeal was rejected but when it went to Student Review things happened. You will also note that one external examiner falsely accused me of being a drug taker on the basis of my exam papers. I was re-instated and allowed another attempt. However at the remedial attempt I failed, I appealed, the appeal was rejected.
However I did keep hold of certain information I was not meant to have hold of. This information is normally only seen by the examiners and assessors. Using this information I managed to get an exam decision overturned from fail to pass. However that was a very stressful few months. Had I got the papers it would have been faster and a lot less stressful.
It leads to a more humane method of giving results. In medicine, pass and fail lists are put up on a notice board by name- this is a humiliating process. They should post the exam script back to you in an envelope with the marking scheme and/or feedback comments.
Ironically I remember one incident. A student who I shall refer to as Mr. X looked on the notice board and got the impression that he had achieved a distinction. I then looked at the notice board and found that Mr. X had erroneously confused his result with that of a student with the same surname. Mr. X had failed and Mr. Y with the same surname had got a distinction. Needless to say that wasn’t a pleasant experience for him.
It makes it easier to being able to speak out and up for yourself. Some students have been suspended for speaking out. They are marked people now. They face the risk of academic failure for no reason at all. When I did my research year one student told me that she had been raped by a consultant but he told her that if she complained he'd have her failed. She was only too aware that there are drawbacks in “anonymous marking.” As such she never complained. If papers were returned it reduces this method of harassment. Although this is an extreme case it does show what I am on about.
|
Ironically Sheffield's medical school dean was asked to write an article on why students should not have their papers back. However he demanded to see my article before he wrote his. If you see the bits in bold in the solicitor's letter below you will see why- he had to overturn an exam decision in June 1998.
Click here to see my response to Weetman’s article.
Interestingly enough I got an email from a Professor about the debate
I am writing to ask for your help. In my medical school we are
coming to
terms with recording of questions and answers in the Path/Micro oral exams.
This presently requires three of our four examiners to be scribbling on
notepads, and I have found this to be a distraction both for myself and for
the candidate.
I also got an email from a prominent student.
Frankly, I was more disgusted that he had read your article
before writing
his own, thus refuting your arguments and not putting forward substantial
ones of his own.
I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of returning papers,
and was partly
involved in ensuring this happens at (Name of university removed). It is a valuable
learning tool.
For oral exams called vivas all that is required is two tape recorders or CD recorders. Two copies of the viva are made and at the end one copy is given to the candidate.
If you see the movie “In the name of the father” about the Guildford four. You will see how the police falsified interviewed evidence. Cases like the Guildford four led to taping of police interviews because of falsified evidence and forcing people to confess. Do academics do the same? Well at a review panel Professor Weetman put me under such pressure he forced me into confessing that exam failure was all my fault when the solicitor’s letter showed otherwise. This is why I think all review hearings/appeals etc should be video taped. What never ceases to amaze me every time I look at the reports from hearings is how selective they are in what they document.
What is to stop academics falsifying evidence such as what happened in a viva? This happened to me and I refuse to believe that the external examiner’s comments are a true reflection of these vivas.
|
My advice to all with non-white names
Firstly I am saddened to say that I have to give this advice as it restricts your choice of places to go.
My advice to anyone who does not have a white English name is not to go to any university where they do not unconditionally return assessments back to candidates when marked. Always ask what safeguards they have, no matter what level-GCSE, A level etc. YOU are the consumer, it is your right to choose.
If they say that they have anonymous marking then do not accept that as a safeguard. This website shows how it is open to abuse.
Before I go onto the next point I have to say that I am sorry that I have to give this advice.
If you cannot find a university that unconditionally returns papers back then strongly consider changing your name to a white name. Although some may call this defeatist there are examiners who don’t mark your words, they mark your name. In such circumstances this is the only way to get a level playing field.
|
Openly advertise "we are prejudiced"
I think employers and universities should be allowed to openly say "we are prejudiced. if you are of such a group then don't come here." The advantage of this is that you won't waste your time applying there, if you do get a place there, your life may be made a misery.
To give a comparator I know people who let rooms out and insist on non-smokers. As such, a smoker won’t waste his/her time phoning to make an appointment, going to the house and then finding out that they won’t be taken. It makes good sense all round. I hope the government will change the law to allow this to happen.
When I applied to go to Sheffield university it was never written in the prospectus that they had people who could abuse their power. This is very misleading.
|
An independent method of assessment
As can be seen from the solicitor's letter I took the United Examining Board licensing exam (www.apothecaries.org). Students can qualify as doctors through the society of apothecaries, as a member of the United Examining Board, which is the only non-university medical licensing body in the United Kingdom.
I think that for certain courses students be allowed to take their exams independently of the university if they feel they can't gain justice from their own universities.
My own view is that there should be a section on the application form for the UEB exam where a candidate can apply to sit the exam if he/she feels that his/her parent university will not let him/her pass under any conditions. This is precisely why I took it.
I would advise all UK medical students to take this exam as if you pass it in the April of your final year you can start doing locums and pay off your debts.
The General Medical Council have stated that they want the UEB exam to be held at a medical school with medical school examiners. My issue is what happens if you have a student who had problems like I had and takes the exam at his/her parent medical school. Suppose I had taken the UEB exam at Sheffield university? Then again Professor Weetman is on the GMC Education Committee so is it any wonder?
From my own experience I can tell you it is very disheartening to prepare for an exam knowing that your university wants you to be failed no matter what you do.
As far as I am aware the UEB exam is only open to undergraduate medical students if there is a letter from the dean outlining the special circumstances regarding a particular student.
Do you honestly believe that a dean like Dr Peters or Professor Weetman would write what was in the solicitor’s letter? Would they submit it as evidence? When Sheffield university tried to have my qualifications taken off me for some reason they didn’t mention anything about the contents of the solicitor’s letter.
I actually confronted the GMC president, Professor Graeme Catto (GC) about this. In a taped interview this is what was said.
SV I’ve heard that the conjoint exam is now at risk. The thing is what happens if you have a dean or lecturer who tries to stop a student from qualifying? The student will need some kind of.
GC My understanding is that the conjoint has been saved.
SV Not for undergraduates.
GC My understanding is that I’ve got a letter in this week saying that SHAS (Strategic Health Authorities) have found funding to take these doctors on for a year but St. Georges I think I am right in saying and Nottingham are setting up the exam together and there is now funding arranged.
SV That’s OK for foreign graduates but for undergraduates, undergraduates can’t take it anymore.
GC That was always the case in this country. It was never supposed to be a way of avoiding finals.
SV I passed with conjoint but my fear is if you have a lecturer or dean who is being awkward and failing a student on purpose he needs some alternative to be able to qualify. Surely?
GC No, the way to deal with that is to deal with the dean or the person being awkward , not to get a bypass mechanism and take the problem head on. The conjoint is no longer the conjoint it is the United Examining Board.
SV The UEB.
GC The deal with that is that it was never intended for British undergraduates. It was kept through the colleges as a way in for doctors from other countries who had circumstances, frequently refugees who had started medical training but couldn’t complete it. It was never seen as a way. That is not to say that there aren’t problems with medical deans.
SV Tell me about it!
GC I don’t know about anybody, you or your circumstances but the way to deal with that is to take them head on not to put a bypass mechanism.
To take on a lecturer or a dean head on is almost impossible.
Firstly there is the fear of repercussions.
Secondly there is the expense. It would involve a solicitor and few students have such resources.
Thirdly when taking such action in my experience the medical school staff will act in such a way as to protect the perpetrator- no action to this day has ever been taken against Dr Peters or Professor Weetman. Even the GMC took no action against Peters.
Fourthly it is very difficult to go into an exam knowing that there is something going on behind the scenes- hence there should be unconditional return of examination scripts.
|
These are face to face exams that medical and dental candidates undergo where you have to assess a patient and present your findings. There is no protection of “anonymous marking.” These have to be video taped it is that simple.
When I was a medical student doing paediatrics 50% of the marks were on continuous assessment,25% of the marks were from the Objective Structured clinical exam. However 25% of the marks came from the clinical exam. If you failed the clinical exam you failed the lot!
The issue here is that in clinical exams there is no anonymity and in the absence of anonymous marking an ethnic minority student will get 12% below the mark of a white student.
That said 70% of diagnoses are made on the patient’s history alone. In which case they can get an actor to give a candidate a history and the candidate has to make the proper diagnosis. The issue here is that these can be taped without any breach of patient confidentiality as they can use actors.
|
In theory at undergraduate level in professions allied to medicine they are supposed to pass you. Given the above and my own experiences I refuse to believe that. At postgraduate level in professions allied to medicine they are supposed to try and fail you. With bias as shown above and the ways that anonymous marking is open to abuse it is easy to see how they can do it.
If they can fail people on purpose maybe they can pass people on purpose. Maybe this is part of the reason for cases such as Rodney Ledward, Richard Neale, the Bristol Heart Scandal and Harold Shipman.
I note that in the Times Higher Education Supplement article Inquiry into “deplorable dumbing down” move it was written “In March this newspaper reported that De Montfort’s School of Pharmacy decided to automatically improve student’s exam results by up to 14% because their performance was so poor. In effect, it lowered the pass mark on one course to 26%. Leaked documents showed that four external examiners for the Mpharm complained that the move was “deplorable.”
National union of students and student unions
These bodies should campaign tooth and nail for the unconditional return of all assessments at all levels from GCSE onwards. They should also be discouraging people of non-white male background to go to any university that does not unconditionally return assessments to students.
|
The British Medical Association Medical Students Committee and Junior doctor’s committee
Both these organisations should fight tooth and nail to keep the UEB exam open for undergraduates. They also need to lobby for recording of clinical exams and vivas.
Trade Unions that represent students in professions allied to medicine.
They should all do the same as what I have recommended for the BMA Medical Students Committee.
|
House of Commons select committee for Education.
The select committee should throw its full weight behind the unconditional return of all assessments at all levels. However wherever possible there should be the equivalent of the UEB exam as a bypass mechanism where a student does not feel he/she can gain justice at the parent university.
|
6th formers should use the power of being the consumer.
As stated above you should be very selective in which universities you apply for. I re-iterate my advice in that if you are of non white male background do not go anywhere that does not unconditionally return exam scripts. Always try and make sure that you do A-levels whose examining board unconditionally returns exam scripts. YOU are the consumer and it is your decision to choose.
|
Encourage your students to only go to universities that return exam scripts. However choose exam boards that unconditionally return scripts and keep copies of all assessments, including the exams scripts as it may be useful later. Again ask your students to boycott the three universities listed above.
|
Referring me to the GMC for this.
No doubt some will want to refer me to the GMC for this. Before doing so consider the following and if anyone makes a referral I will take them to court for harassment.
In 1999 the GMC Standards Committee met to consider the issues involving the behaviour of doctors who comment in the media. It was their view that the GMC should not attempt to curtail doctor’s rights to express their personal opinions. Doctors , like anyone else commenting in the media, are subject to the same constraints imposed by media regulatory bodies and the libel laws. Furthermore the Committee considered that the professions reputation depends principally on the standards and care and conduct provided by doctors to their patients and not personal opinions as put forward in published letters or articles.
There is also the judgement of Steel and Morris vs. United Kingdom European Court of Human Rights February 2005. Commonly known as McLibel paragraphs 79 and 88.
|
In conclusion “anonymous marking” is in theory a good idea but the only way to eliminate bias and prejudice in marking assessments is the unconditional return of examination scripts. If you are lobbying your institution for anonymous marking you should also ask for your exam papers back. The question remains. Are there other academics like those I faced at Sheffield University elsewhere? (Hopefully not) If so how many? Should we not do more to protect the students? Their ultimate protection is to give them their papers back.
|
