Changes arising from review of Academic Regulations

ACADEMIC REGULATIONS WORKING GROUP

No.	Issue	Current position/source	Recommendation
1	Resits and progression – whether an Assessment Board should be able to deny the opportunity of an August resit (ie oblige the student to carry the resit into the next year). (see also 2 below)	Rules for Award 7.4: ‘The Assessment Board has the discretion to deny an August resit to a student who has made an unreasonably poor attempt in the preceding attempt….. In such exceptional circumstances the Assessment Board may determine that the final attempt is dependent on the candidate repeating the module (with teaching)’	It is recognised that, on occasion, a student might be counselled to repeat a module but the view of the Working Group was that that the definition of an ‘unreasonably poor attempt’ was unclear and the Assessment Board should not be able to deny an early resit on that basis. Change made Remove wording which permits denial of a resit on the basis of an ‘unreasonably poor attempt’.
2	Link between assessment and attendance	Regulations for taught postgraduate awards 7: ‘candidates will not be permitted to present themselves for [such] examination or assessment unless they have satisfactorily attended the prescribed module/course and performed any required class, practical and/or clinical work to the satisfaction of the designated authority’	The view of the working group was that non attendance at classes per se was not an adequate reason to prevent a student from sitting the assessment unless the nature of the learning outcomes or the assessment itself required it. Change made Remove from regulation but note in the Attendance and Engagement policy that, where attendance is a required part of the module learning outcomes (e.g. performance, medicine), Schools should make this clear in the module information.
3	Failed first attempt – alternative module for second attempt	Regulations for undergraduate degrees and awards 17 and regs for taught postgraduate awards 14: Where permissible in the programme of study and subject to the provisions of Regulation 4, a candidate who has failed the first assessment but who has not attempted the re-assessment for an optional or elective module may seek the permission of the parent School to study and present for assessment in another such module on a single occasion (as if it were a re-assessment). The assessment opportunity in such a substituted module will normally be at the end of either semester 1 or semester 2 when the assessment is next offered. Only with the prior approval of the relevant Faculty Special Cases Committee will the mark that an individual student can achieve in such a substituted module exceed the minimum pass mark designated on the University scale of grades.	Although this provision for a student to pick up an entirely new module for their reassessment attempt only applies to optional/elective and discovery modules, it is nevertheless believed to be undesirable as a student in this position would be trying to pick up a new module from scratch over the summer with no teaching. Change made Remove from regulation the provision for a student to take a new module as ‘reassessment’.
4	Special Circumstances discretion – ‘medical marking’	Rules for Award 9.8: ‘medical and mitigating circumstances may be taken into account in arriving at a degree classification which is more favourable than the normal classification rules may otherwise yield.’	In presenting the proposal for removal of this rule the Working Group had expressed the view that this was not in the best interests of the student body as a whole in that it was very challenging for it to be applied consistently, fairly and transparently; that it risked inequity; and that this was properly a matter to be dealt with prior to the Assessment Board, through the mitigating circumstances procedure. In consultation and during discussion at TSEB it was recognised that such decisions did need to be overtly evidenced-based, and that there was a need to ensure that the mitigating circumstances procedure included guidance on how to use any such ‘discretion’. The concern was also expressed that this provision should not be immediately removed as it may have been promised to some current (second year) students. It was therefore agreed that the provision would be retained in 2024/25 (see academic regulations 7.3.4) but would be removed thereafter. Decision made During 2024/25 the Mitigating Circumstances procedure will be revised to incorporate a robust and transparent means of addressing those student cases currently considered under para 9.8 of the Rules for Award, with the provisions under para 9.8 being removed from the regulations once the revised mitigating circumstances procedures are in place.
5	Students permitted to take additional credits	Regulations for first degrees and undergraduate awards 3a: ‘[Programmes will comprise} the study of 120 credits during each Programme Year (Article 6 of Ordinance IX refers) as laid down in the individual programme specification published in the University's programme catalogue. Part-time programmes will require the study in each session of the number of credits specified in the prescribed programme specification. With the approval of the relevant committee this normal number of credits may be exceeded either in respect of an individual prescribed programme specification to the extent prescribed by the regulations specifically applicable to the first degree or undergraduate award concerned or to enable an individual candidate to undertake at his/her own request additional modules or preparation for the re-assessment of failed credits provided that normally no full-time candidate will be permitted to study in excess of 80 credits, and no part-time candidate in excess of 40 credits, per semester.‘	Having programmes or individual students on diets of modules which are outwith the usual credit volumes adds complexity and burden to the student as well as cost to the University in delivering and administering. Curriculum Redefined has regularised programme size, and the recommendation seeks to clarify the limited circumstances in which individual students can take modules beyond their programme diet. Change made That the provision for a student to take additional modules be retained but with the following additional clarifications as to the circumstances in which this might happen: ‘Such circumstances might include enabling a student to take a ‘discovery’ module where their own programme cannot accommodate it, or to facilitate entry via APL or a transfer of programme if specific learning is required’ and that the permission of the parent school is required. See regs 6.2.2
6	Concurrent registration for more than one programme of study	Regulations for first degrees and undergraduate awards section 4 and regulations for taught postgraduate students section 6: In exceptional circumstances and only with the prior approval of the Committee on Applications a candidate registered for a prescribed programme may be permitted to register for a second prescribed programme where there is appropriate evidence that the two programmes can be undertaken concurrently and there is no overlap between the content of the two programmes'	The working group found this to be used only rarely eg student may be registered for a summer school as well as a degree, or may be on two part-time programmes. Change made Retain the provision for concurrent registration but with the addition of the following wording: A student may be permitted to register for more than one programme only where the combined workload is deemed reasonable by the University, normally not exceeding that of a full-time programme. See regs 6.1.2
7	Restrictive circumstances for posthumous and aegrotat awards	Ordinance XVI states that conferment of a posthumous degree may be considered only following successful completion of the penultimate year of a programme of study. Whilst an intermediate terminating qualification (ICQ) would be available if a student had died at an earlier stage in their studies, this would only be for (eg) a certificate or diploma in higher education rather than a degree.	The view of ARWG was that this was a restrictive and ungenerous approach and that a posthumous award should be able to be made from a much earlier point. In this way it would not focus on what the deceased student had actually studied and passed so much as the intended target award, no matter how far they had progressed. This frames posthumous awards as being about honouring the memory of the student rather than a measure of their actual achievement. It is noted that posthumous awards are rare, and a protocol would be developed to guide their award. It is anticipated that it would not be automatic but would be for the student’s next of kin to decide whether to claim such an award. A recommendation would be made by the School to Senate’s delegated body as to the outstanding requirements of the degree being waived. A lower award than that for which the deceased student was registered could be recommended, if this would be the most appropriate option. Change made To allow a posthumous award of the target award regardless of the stage of study the student has reached at the time of their death NB this requires Council approval as it involves amendment of Ordinance XVI
8	Flexibility of study and ‘stackability’ of credits	The working group considered the ways in which the University’s current regulations and procedures are problematic for students who are not on full time undergraduate degrees and may be studying online and/or wanting to study more flexibly. The obstacles described included the APL and double counting rules, which do not facilitate stepping on and stepping off. The working group also noted that the current APL rule whereby ‘If a student leaves the programme before completion, a University of Leeds intermediate concluding qualification can be conferred only if stipulated in the programme specifications and the student has undertaken at least two thirds of the award at the University of Leeds.’ was restrictive in that it did not allow a student to exit (eg) with a PGDip if they had entered with a PGCert but were not able to continue to Masters, and was not in line with the more general principle of intermediate concluding qualifications being awarded where a student has achieved the required credits and ‘stepping on and off’ being facilitated. It is therefore proposed that this be reduced to half the award having been studied at Leeds.	Changes made 1) That the academic regulations facilitate greater flexibiity by clarifying when the import of a prior qualification or credit is permitted (in addition to existing provision for APL, top ups and intercalation) 2) That, where a student re-enters a University of Leeds programme under the provisions above, their marks as well as their credit will be imported and will contribute to the classification where applicable. 3) That the APL requirement that no ICQ can be conferred unless a student has ‘undertaken at least two thirds of the award at the University of Leeds’ be amended to be ‘half of the award’. See regs 5.3.3, 9.4 and 5.3.2 respectively.
9	Ordinary degree as defined route	The current Rules for Award refer to an Ordinary degree in two ways: as a defined route, onto which a student might be transferred after year 1 or 2 if they had insufficient credits to remain on the honours programme, and as a potential final outcome for candidates who, at the final stage, do not achieve the full credits for a classified honours degree. The working group has been advised that the former - defined Ordinary route - was previously confined to usage in one former Faculty, and that the majority of Schools originating from that former Faculty have ceased to use it.	It is considered inequitable to have an Ordinary route in only a small number of courses, allowing those students to progress when students with that same level of achievement on other courses would have had to withdraw. The ARWG noted also that Ordinary routes are now very unusual in the sector. Change made The Ordinary degree will be removed as a defined route and will not be available to students entering from September 2025 and beyond. (NB it will remain as a potential final outcome for candidates who do not achieve the full credits for a classified Bachelors degree).