Governance Office

Format of Post Meeting Correspondence

This should be read in conjunction with section 9 of Effective Committee Management: the
role of the Secretary.
Effective targeted communication post meetings is very important. Don't assume that
everyone will be anxious to read your Minutes. They won't be. So, unless you write directly
to individuals, the decisions that you need to disseminate will be lost. You will need to
compose a memo (a memo is better as the official communication which may be used for
other purposes) addressed to the person that (a) needs to take action or (b) is being
informed about a decision that has been made. Copy the memo to others who may be
affected/interested. It is okay to include an extract from the Minutes but you also need to set
out who is to take what action. This should be done as soon as possible after the Chair has
approved the Minutes.
Date
22 April
2008

Addressed to people
for action

Copy for information to

relevant people

From

Dr A Person
Sussex House
Ext 2195
Email: A.Person@sussex.ac.uk

To

School Administrators (Curriculum)

Directors of Taught Programmes

cc

School Administrative Managers

Heads of Department

MARKING SCALES AND AWARD CRITERIA FOR POSTGRADUATE MASTERS

PROGRAMMES
Make clear action
from a named
committee

I am writing to let you know that Academic Regulations Committee, at its meeting
on Wednesday last, considered the proposals for marking scales and award
criteria for Postgraduate Masters programmes.
The following is an extract from the Minutes:
1.

MARKING SCALES AND AWARD CRITERIA FOR POSTGRADUATE

MASTERS PROGRAMMES
The Committee received Paper AR/11/3.

Extract from the

Minutes

It was noted that, at the 9th meeting, the Committee had approved, in
principle, new marking scales for the award of postgraduate Masters
programmes, subject to consultation with departments. Paper AC/12/5

/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_1/323203594.doc

set out the responses from the departments and a new proposal that the
marking scales should also be adopted for the award of postgraduate
diplomas.
The following points were among those made in discussion:
(a)

a standard pass mark of 40% had been set by Senate in 2003 for all
taught programmes. The School of Science Studies had suggested that
while, this pass mark be adopted for Arts programmes, the pass mark for
programmes in the School should be set at 45%.

(b)

the School of Divinity did not want to adopt a numerical marking scale
but instead to introduce an alpha marking scale.

(c)

there were mixed views on whether failure of courses should be

permitted for the award of distinction both from the responses from the
Schools and from members of the Committee. On the one hand, it was
argued that a distinction should be of such quality that there should be
no failure (which is a requirement of some professional bodies) while, on
the other hand, the requirements to get a distinction were such that any
failure would be very small. The Committee concluded that no failure
should be permitted;

(d)

the Committee supported the introduction of the new criteria from the
next but one academic year.
It was agreed:

Action required

Signed off from the

Secretary to the
Committee

1.1

that, in order to ensure consistency of marking scales across the

University, the pass mark, as set by Senate, be reconfirmed at 40%;

1.2

to approve the marking scales as set out in the paper for Masters and
postgraduate Diploma programmes;

1.3

to approve the introduction of the marking scales and criteria with effect
from the next but one academic year (2009-10).

1.4

that, for the award of distinction, no failures of courses be permitted.

I should be grateful if School Administrators (Curriculum) would co-ordinate with

the Directors of Taught Programmes to amend handbooks and relevant websites.

Secretary to Academic Regulations Committee

/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_1/323203594.doc