NEW GUIDANCE ON COMBINING GRADES
Approved by the Dean of Studies, May 2008
The following guidance on combining grades towards overall Degree GPA results has been developed from the
work of the Assessment Review Group. The Dean of Studies has approved this for integration into the Guidance
Notes for Boards of Examiners and related documents such as student handbooks.
NB that the below applies for London-based courses only; related guidance for Distance Learning
courses is still to be agreed with the UoL External System (but is expected to follow all the same
principles).
Key principles for combining grades are:
 Grades which are directly agreed by markers for individual pieces of work (i.e. module assignments, exam
questions, projects or practical exams) should be on the six-point integer grading scale from 5 (excellent) to
0 (very poor fail).
 Marking pairs must agree any marks which are formally reported to students; however below this level (i.e.
if an assessment task has informal component elements), markers’ views may differ provided they can agree
the overall grade.
 When combining such individual agreed grades into gradepoint averages, e.g. to calculate a taught
component GPA or an exam GPA, straightforward weighted averages should be used. Calculations and
record-keeping systems should mathematically combine and bring forward data without rounding.
 However, rounding is permissible in: (i) assigning an overall GP to individual module assignments or exam
questions which use a numeric marking scheme (as it would be inappropriate to take forward small
differences between students which arise at that level); and (ii) reporting of final marks, e.g. on transcripts,
which may be rounded to two decimal places.
 Combined marks should always be reported as numeric gradepoint averages, not letter grades.
 The overall degree GPA is calculated from three distinct components: in-course (module), written exam and
project grades. For some courses, a practical exam result may also be factored in.
Percentage or numeric marking:
 Whilst marking in percentages is not the standard School policy, particular courses currently use percentage
or numeric schemes for some elements of work, e.g. module assessments or exam questions based on
mathematical or yes/no or multiple-choice questions. This remains valid practice, but such numeric mark
totals or percentages should then normally be converted to an overall grade on the standard integer scale
before being taken forward for combination with other marks. See notes below on module marking and
exam marking.
 As currently, there should be no fixed “percentage to gradepoint” conversion – rather, individual Exam
Boards should approve use of a conversion scheme that best fits the particular assignment or question. The
approved conversion should appear in the marking pack for each assessment/question for which it is to be
used. The table below gives three examples of conversion charts, which replace the single example
previously given in the standard MSc marking scheme.
Example
MARK
Grade
(%)
point
80-100
5
70-79
4
60-69
3
50-59
2
40-49
1
<40
0
(typical scheme)
Example
MARK Grade
(%)
point
95-100
5
85-94
4
75-84
3
60-74
2
50-59
1
<50
0
(higher numeric
pass threshold)
Example
MARK
Grade
(%)
point
75-100
5
60-74
4
45-59
3
30-44
2
20-29
1
<20
0
(lower numeric
pass threshold)
NB that these are examples of percentage-to gradepoint conversion schemes,
which may be modified by Exam Boards as appropriate to an assignment – there
1 of 3
is no single standard scheme.
Module (in-course) marking:
 Most modules are expected to have a single assessment which is marked on the integer grading scale.
 For modules where more than one assessment component is specified in the module outline (e.g. both
individual and groupwork elements), these components should be marked individually on the integer scale,
and the grades combined into a GPA according to an agreed weighting. Such components must be clearly
defined: being spelt out in the module outline (e.g. individual versus groupwork elements), with each
component being individually double-marked and marks agreed by markers, and with component-specific
grades and feedback being reported to the student – so that the student could check their module GPA based
on the component GPs they have been given. Where a module has distinct assessment components like this,
the combined GPA should be brought forward as the module result rather than being rounded to an integer.
 Module assessments with a numeric (quantitative or percentage-based) marking scheme should be treated as
consisting of a single component, unless there is a good reason to break into multiple components which are
spelt out in the module outline and fed back on individually to students. Such assessments should first be
scored against their own specific grading scheme, with the summed result then converted to an integer
gradepoint (not a GPA) which is reported to the student and taken forward. An appropriate specific
conversion scheme should be used, which will normally require rounding of the numeric mark.
 Note that for module assessments which are qualitative, if the module organiser wishes to give students
guidance regarding rough “components” or scoring for how an overall mark will be arrived at (e.g. one-third
for background, one-third for analysis, one-third for conclusions) then this is perfectly permissible.
 For quantitative assessments, it is always good practice for students to be given a reasonable idea in advance
of how the marking will operate, and question papers or assignment details should make clear what
proportion of the total marks may be awarded for each question/section.
Written exam marking:
 In most cases, individual exam questions should be marked as a single unit of assessment on the integer
grading scale. As per current procedures, individual exam question grades should be combined to give an
overall paper GPA, with paper GPAs then being averaged to give an exam GPA.
 Exam questions based on numeric marking schemes should convert the numeric result to an integer
gradepoint, using an appropriate specific conversion scheme. This will entail rounding at question-result
level. Alternatively, courses which currently mark individual exam questions numerically and combine
scores into a numeric result for the overall paper, then convert it to a paper GPA, may continue to do so at
the discretion of their Exam Board (who must have approved a precisely-specified scheme). Rounding
should not normally take place in such cases, as the mark will have been based on a significant weight and
depth of questions. Note that standard spreadsheets for recording exam marks may need to be updated.
 Where exam questions have subcomponents which need to be individually graded and double-marked by
different sets of markers – which is the case for some specialist areas on ITD – then these should be marked
with individual integer grades, and combined into an overall GPA for the question (not rounding to an
integer gradepoint), according to an agreed weighting also clearly specified on the exam paper.
Alternatively, where appropriate and at the discretion of the exam board, these separate components may be
marked numerically (with the marks agreed by relevant pairs of markers) and combined into a single
numeric mark for the question which is then converted to a GPA. The occurrence of such questions/cases is
expected to be infrequent.
Project marking:
 As per ARG recommendation detailed separately, exam boards should have discretion to either mark
projects with a ‘holistic’ integer grade, or with a more detailed overall project GPA arrived at using an
agreed component marking scheme (the key details of which should have been published/available to
students).
Standard pass thresholds:
2 of 3

The standard pass threshold for any degree component or module result is GPA 2.00. However, in describing
results for elements of work below module level, or for individual exam questions, the grade should simply
be quoted without describing it as a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ – those are not felt to be meaningful terms at those levels.
Exam passes and re-sit eligibility
 For exam results, Boards should consider the overall exam component GPA first. If students have achieved
2.0 or above in this and 2.0 or above in their degree overall, then there would be no need to consider whether
individual papers are ‘pass’ or ‘fail’.
 However, if the student fails the overall exam component, they can only be eligible to re-sit individual
papers in which they scored below GPA 2.00. NB that if they passed a particular paper with GPA 2.00 or
above, that paper may not be re-sat.
 In cases where the student has passed their exam component but their overall degree GPA is below 2.00,
individual exam paper results may be reconsidered, with a re-sit being allowed for any individual papers in
which they scored below GPA 2.00.
Compensation of failed components in overall degree result:
 ARG has recommended no change to the current system for combining in-course (module), exam and
project component gradepoints or GPAs. These are averaged against a set weighting to calculate the overall
degree GPA, which then determines the degree result as pass, fail or distinction. The standard pass threshold
is 2.0, and the ‘consider pass’ borderline GPA range is between 1.6 and 1.99.
 In line with this, ARG recommends no substantive change to the compensation rules. It is possible to fail
one component, i.e. with GPA between 1.00 and 1.99, and still be eligible to pass the degree (minimum GPA
would be 1.60, i.e. still in the ‘consider pass’ range, based on 2.00 in the exams and project, and 1.00 in the
taught component).
 Students who achieve less than GPA 1.00 in any components, or who fail two components, are automatically
failed overall.
 It should be stressed that students do not automatically pass in cases where rules apply about compensation
and when it is “permissible” to fail. Rather, the rules set certain boundaries on the minimum standard that
must be attained to pass the degree. If the student meets these criteria and has an overall degree GPA
between 1.6 and 1.99, they should be considered as a borderline case by the Board of Examiners; but the
Board may well choose not to award them a degree.
Re-sits
 Note that where a student has failed a particular component of their degree which is compensatable, and they
are therefore eligible to re-sit an element (i.e. one or both exam papers, the project, or a module assessment),
the Board must choose whether to request that they re-sit, or whether to permit them to pass without resitting. More detailed guidance and policy on re-sits is currently being developed by the Registry.
3 of 3