 |
 |
I agree with andy's point in here about if the mention was so critical then one would have to be up front about. One way round this situation would be to say that x had to be mentioned but part of the assessment of the script would revolve round the validity, applicability, general aceptance etc etc of x in the confines of the given topic area. That way at least the marker will be able to differentiate between the quality of scripts (in this respect. Division of Allied Health, School of Health & Community Studies 01332 593139 (voicemail) 01332 254635 www.mirad.freeserve.co.uk >>> [log in to unmask] 12/16/02 13:05 PM >>> I'm doing a lot of marking like most colleagues at the moment but have come across - not at my Institution - some very steep gradients in a marking scheme. That is in a journalism exercise with one hundred points at stake the marker has taken 10 marks off for each failure to mention a first name (of Marx, Gramsci and Weber!) so reducing the student's mark by 30 points to 26. I have made it clear to the marker that I don't believe any such scheme can be justified but am having difficulty laying my hands on something other than my own feelings about such marking. nic groombridge st mary's college ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com ________________________________________________________________________