Letter to Professor Hamilton Oct 2 2012

7/30/2019 Letter to Professor Hamilton Oct 2 2012

1/5

Email to Director of UoL Oct 2, 2012Subject: UoL Grading Policy

from: Moshe Admon to: [email protected] date: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:45 AMsubject: UoL Grading Policy and a request for my exams

Dear Professor Hamilton,

Last week I received an email from Mrs. Rawlings that my 2012 exam papers were reviewed and thegrades awarded were found to be correct. Mrs. Rawlings though did not answer my query as to if all fourexam questions for Trusts were turned in and graded by the examiners considering that my answers werevoluminous, taking up 4-5 booklets, and packed with great detail.

So you are aware, for my 2012 exams I studied at a much greater depth and breadth than in 2011. I hadthe benefit of experience from my first year, and also incorporated many more texts and outside sources

into my learning, as you emphasize in your letter to students on the VLE. I can unequivocally state thatthe quality and depth of my exam answers for 2012 greatly surpassed those of 2011. For each exam inTrusts and Tort I presented nearly 100 precedents in total, and for Public presented nearly 50. I providedmany critiques, quotes and legal theories from different authors of multiple books and journals, andshowed enormous breadth of learning from a great variety of sources, as you recommended. Yet, with allmy efforts, my 2012 exam grades were worse than my 2011 grades.

Due to my experience last year and the shock I received from my low grade in Criminal law (which I feelwas unjustified, the answers of which were very similar to the model answers provided in the examinerreport for the 2011 exam), I embarked on a new strategy. Immediately upon my return home from examsI sat down and wrote my answers in full from rote so I would have them in my file for review. Afterreceiving what I feel to be the completely unjustified low grades of 45 in Trusts, 60 in Tort and 61 inPublic, I sent my Trust exam answers and UoLs Assessment Criteria to several professors in universitiesthroughout the UK outside of UoL. I received several replies that the grade I was awarded was completelyunmerited in relation to the answers I provided. For further comment, I showed my answers to severalUoL students. One student who received a first class mark in an exam was shocked that I received themarks awarded, and commented that my exam answers were equivalent if not better than those he was
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/5

awarded a 71 for. Another student, who received a 58 in his Tort exam, was dumfounded that my Tortexam was only awarded a grade of 2 points higher than his, although he commented that my examanswers contained 70-80 more precedents than his answers and went into much greater detail, depth, andanalyzed many more facets of the problems. Considering all this feedback and my own opinion of thequality of my work, I respectfully disagree completely with the finding that the grades awarded to me

were correct and I feel obligated to raise some serious issues regarding UoL and its grading policies.

1) As I requested of you last year, we the students have a right to see samples of First Class examanswers IN FULL. The examiner reports provided are very lacking, and consist in many cases of 2paragraph answers. There is no way for a student to get an idea of how to write a first class script byutilizing such scant and brief reports when a proper exam answer should consist of at least 2-3 pages.

2) Due to the nature of our program, the only interaction of external students with UoL is throughexams. This is the only time in a full year of learning that an academician actually critiques our work.For one years worth of effort, we are graded on an encounter of less than 60 minutes with anunknown examiner. Because of this, we are entitled to have the exams returned to us (eitherphysically or scanned into a computer and emailed) so we can see the comments and critiques of the

examiners written on our individual exams. If we do not know where we went wrong, how can weever learn to improve?

3) UoL must allow students with a high academic standing who feel their grades were unjustified toappeal for academic review (not just an administrative review) to a third party examiner, who willgrade the answers thoroughly with explanations in the side notes, without looking at the previousexaminer comments. This third party review must be weighed into the final grading of the exams.This privilege should only be awarded to students who have achieved a certain grade point average orabove, and should be paid for by the student who demands a review.

4) Many quality students have expressed to me that they feel the grading methodology of UoL is a gameof roulette played in a black box. Henceforth are the following problems which have been expressedto me by multiple students in many different email correspondences:

a. There is no consistency in grading, and many students that feel strongly in a particular subjecttend to do worse than in subjects in which they feel lacking.

b. The formats of the questions presented are excessively random and poorly designed fortesting the knowledge of a whole year's learning in a large subject. It inevitably leads to aconsiderable amount of random variation in the outcomes. A student who has not botheredto even learn the whole syllabus may get lucky and come away with a good mark.Conversely, a very good student who is out of sync with the thinking of the examiners, or isotherwise unlucky, can get a poor mark. Evidence of this was posted on a UoL facebook group which states the following:August 25 at 4:44pm Eisha Mohsin : (Received a 63 in Trusts): I study at the very last

minute and study as selectively as possible so Im not sure if Im in a position to give anyworthwhile advice :P . I had a great teacher though, I kept alert in his classes I think thatreally worked in my favour. It helps knowing the subject guide inside out. I did just a littleabove half the course in detail, but whatever I did cover I made sure I knew thoroughly. Asfar as textbooks go I chose not to complicate things and stuck to Penner. Right before theexams I went through the recent devs, 4 years worth of past papers and read through the Q/As

book.


3/5

c. Inevitably, there is a considerable degree of subjectivity in grading the major problem oressay questions, given the nature of law as a subject. We can see this in the numerousinstances where the House of Lords has radically differed from the very learned judges of theCourt of Appeal. The apparently well reasoned judgments of the Court of Appeal are ineffect given a failing grade.

To many of us, the UoL LL.B. is a path we have undertaken to advance our lives. Additionally, manystudents in the program study completely independently without the aid of tutors, teachers, or a learninginstitution to provide guidance. Many of these students spend their hard earned money to study at UoLbut are not given the learning assistance that students who attend intuitions receive. As you are aware,many UoL professors spend their time flying to multiple institutions throughout the world to givepersonalized guidance to students at these institutions, a luxury which many independent students do nothave access to nor can afford. The current treatment that all UoL students, and particularly independentstudents receive from the University in regards to the singular and most important element of our studies

our exams is unjust in many regards, and the policies of UoL to this extent must change. The programhas a choice to take the advice of students such as myself who feel completely wronged and improve itsgrading methodology, at least minimally by way of giving us guidance through remarks in our exampapers that will be returned to us, or the program can continue its customary ways and add to theacrimony amongst its students. Making this positive change takes little effort on part of the Universityand will only serve to improve the education of its students and the reputation of the program as a whole.

Now that I am registered in my final year, and still have a slim chance of achieving a first classgraduating mark, I respectfully request that the University provide me with my 2012 scripts in full with

the examiner remarks so that I can understand their grading methodology and improve myself for nextyear. I also respectfully request that the University heed my above listed points and steer towards thedirection of improving its methods to progress the learning of its students. As you are well aware in 2012only three students out of thousands achieved a first class. This exceedingly low percentage is eithersymptomatic of the Universitys teaching methodology or a symptom of its grading methodology, but itcan and should be improved. There are many of us which study with immense focus and determinationand grasp the law at a very high level, and we should be properly rewarded for our efforts, both infeedback and in grading.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely Yours,

Moshe Admon, B.Sc., B.A.LL.B. Class of 2013, University of London


4/5

Follow Up Email Nov 5, 2012

from: Moshe Admon to: [email protected] date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:04 AMsubject: UoL Grading Policy and a request for my exams

Dear Professor Hamilton,

I sent you the email below on October 2, 2012. I received an automatic response saying you were out of the office and will return by October 22. Fifteen days have passed since then so I am re-sending you theemail.

As you are well aware, I have been requesting that the University return my exams and provide mefeedback on them since my first year of studies, which you refused. Being a correspondence program,there is no other way for me to have any means to improve without this vital communication andfeedback, on my only submitted work during the year, which leaves a great lacuna in my education andmy ability to improve. This lack of feedback from my individual past exams prevented me fromachieving higher results in my second year, and has the potential of damaging my progress in the thirdand final year of studies.

Additionally, due to the exceptionally thorough and detailed answers I submitted in my second yearexams, which were much broader and deeper than my first year exam papers, I still have no idea where Ierred. By denying me the ability to see my own exams in full with examiner markings, many uncertaintiesremain unaddressed and I, as well as many other students, am left completely in the dark.

I hope to hear back from you regarding this most pressing issue.

Sincerely Yours,

Moshe Admon, B.Sc., B.A.LL.B. Class of 2013, University of London


5/5

REPLY Nov 6, 2012

from: Jenny Hamilton to: Moshe Admon date: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:45 AMsubject: RE: UoL Grading Policy and a request for my exams

Dear Moshe Admon

I can confirm I did receive email. However because you have made a specific request for return of yourexamination paper I forwarded your email to the Corporate Performance and Quality Directorate after myreturn from my last overseas trip.

I will also forward this email.

Regards

Prof Jenny Hamilton

Professor Jenny HamiltonDirector Undergraduate Laws ProgrammeUniversity of London International ProgrammesStewart House | 32 Russell Square | London WC1B 5DN | United KingdomTel: +44 (0)20 78628384 Web: www.londoninternational.ac.uk

Documents

Letter to Professor Hamilton Oct 2 2012