Universities should scrap rubbish retake marks

University students will be eagerly searching their university's website this week, in hope of succeeding in retaken exams.

While many successful students have had long, care-free Summers, having passed their exams, the ones who failed have not had the weight of work lifted. Instead, they have been studying hard to achieve a result of 40 per cent, which is the maximum a student can achieve on a retake. On paper, this reflects a mere scrape over the finish line. But in many cases, I'm not convinced that this result even scratches the surface of what many will have achieved in their retakes.

I am one of those who have had to retake an exam in August, having fallen six per cent short of the 40 pass mark May. I was relieved today to find that I had indeed passed, but it wasn't the buzz of elation I had expected. Instead, I felt an undercurrent of disappointment that my result did not reflect how well I may have really done in that exam.

Is, then, the 40 per cent limitation on retakes really necessary? Let's look at the positives: it's a great incentive for students to pass these exams first time around; it may also make the marking process less hassle for tutors; and it prevents the injustice of retakers achieving better marks than those who have passed first time.

As much as the limitation is a great incentive to pass first time around, it can have the adverse effect once a student fails. It is frustrating and demoralising at the very least that a student can know the subject inside out come the time of the retake and know they will pass with ease and still only get 40 per cent, a mark which says nothing on the marking sheet of how much the student might really know.

Whether or not the limitation makes it less hassle for tutors to mark papers should be bottom of the agenda when deciding to impose this limitation. That is not to say that exams should not be structured to make the marking system easier, but that the needs of the candidates sitting the exams should come first.

The strongest argument for the limitation would seem to be that it would be unfair if Jim retaking his exam achieved more than Sally did first time. However, there would be a simple way around this. The system should be changed to allow those who have passed already to improve their marks at the time of the retake should they want to. That would put them on level terms with the candidates retaking and allow the first-time failures to get the mark they deserve the second time around.

Sceptics may argue that there should not be any retakes in the first place and no second chances. However, with something so long as a three-year degree, getting rid of retakes would be an unwise option when failing a module would lead to a complete failure of the degree. When an exam makes up one of many different parts of the degree, it would be an injustice for someone to fail theirs completely based simply on, perhaps, a bad day at the office when it comes to the exam. Instead, it should be the 40 per cent limitations which are scrapped.

Universities should sit up and take notice of this advice, which would produce results which are more reflective of what the student knows come the time of passing their degree, instead of the confusing double-implication that they either failed or passed first time with a mark of 40.