Examination of Sub-Doctoral Postgraduate Research Components of 30 Points and Above Procedures 2021 (Formerly part of Instructions to Examiners and Assessors)

Application

These procedures apply to all staff members and students of the University and to the examination of sub-doctoral postgraduate research components of 30 points and above.

Purpose

To outline the procedures for the appointment of examination roles and the examination of sub-doctoral postgraduate research components of 30 points and above.

Background

From 1 January 2021 these procedures supersede the material on examining theses, research portfolios, dissertations, research essays, and research projects in the Instructions to Examiners and Assessors. These procedures are reviewed annually by Education Committee.

Roles and responsibilities

1. The Associate Dean Postgraduate Research (ADPGR) is responsible for affirming the integrity of the examination process and approving the appropriateness of the final result; for reviewing potential disputed results cases referred by the Academic Head; and for reviewing any other cases referred by the Examinations Services Office (ESO).

Note 1: Another nominated Associate Dean/Director in the faculty or Large Scale Research Institute or another faculty may undertake the role of the ADPGR with respect to some or all of these procedures.

Note 2: If the ADPGR was involved in the supervision of a thesis, research portfolio, dissertation, research essay or research project, or was the examiner of a thesis or research portfolio, or the examiner or assessor of a dissertation, research essay or research project, then another Associate Dean must take on the ADPGR role with regard to that piece of work. Where cases referred by the ESO involve reviewing decisions made by an ADPGR or othernominated Associate Dean, another independent Associate Dean should take the ADPGR role for purposes of such review.

2. The Academic Head is responsible for approving the appointment of:

  • examiners for theses and research portfolios in accordance with the Masters Examiner Appointment Procedures.
  • examiners and assessors for dissertations, research essays, and research projects; and
  • graduate advisors (or nominees).

The Academic Head endorses recommendations on final grades for referral to the ADPGR and for referring possible disputed results cases to the ADPGR.

Note: if the Academic Head was involved in the supervision of a thesis, research portfolio, dissertation, research essay or research project, or intends to act as the examiner of a thesis or research portfolio, or as the examiner or assessor of a dissertation, research essay or research project, then another member of the academic unit must take on the role of acting Academic Head with regard to that piece of work. Such a nomination should be made at the time the examiner(s), assessor (where applicable) and graduate advisor are nominated. The Academic Head and the graduate advisor (or nominee) must not be the same individual.

3. The examiner makes an initial independent examination of the piece of work and provides a written report substantiating their recommended grade and/or mark. Where two examiners are required, reports are produced independently and the examiners must not confer as to their initial recommendations.

4. The assessor is responsible for maintaining appropriate and adequate academic standards for all aspects of the assessment process. The assessor assesses the piece of work in light of the examiner’s report and provides a written commentary on the validity of the recommended result.

5. The graduate advisor (or nominee) is responsible for considering examination and assessment reports in accordance with these procedures and making a recommendation to the Academic Head.

Procedures

Note: for the purposes of these procedures, a nominee may act for the graduate advisor and an acting Academic Head may take the responsibilities of the Academic Head.

Appointment of examiners, assessors and graduate advisors (or nominees)

Dissertations, research essays, or research projects with a value of between 30 and 80 points inclusive

6. The following examination roles are appointed by the Academic HeadOne examiner (who may be the supervisor or a member of the supervisory team).

  • One examiner (who may be the supervisor or a member of the supervisory team).
  • One assessor (who must not be the supervisor or a member of the supervisory team).
  • One graduate advisor (who must not have been involved in the supervision or been the examiner or assessor of the work).

7. Where the dissertation, research essay or research project is worth 60 points or more, either the examiner or assessor must be appointed from outside the University of Auckland.

90 and 120 point research components of Bachelor Honours degrees, postgraduate diplomas, and first 120 points of 240 point masters degrees

8. The following examination roles are appointed by the Academic Head:

  • One examiner (who must not be the supervisor or a member of the supervisory team).
  • One assessor (who must not be the supervisor or a member of the supervisory team).
  • One graduate advisor (who must not have been involved in the supervision or been the examiner or assessor of the work).

9. Either the examiner or assessor must be appointed from outside the University of Auckland.

Theses or research portfolios with a value of 90 points or more (except 90 and 120 point research components of Bachelor Honours degrees, postgraduate diplomas and first 120 points of 240 point masters degrees)

10. The following examination roles are appointed by the Academic Head:

  • Two examiners. Neither examiner may have supervised the work nor been part of the supervisory team. At least one of the examiners must be from outside the University of Auckland. The examiners must not be from the same institution. Examiners must be appointed according to the Masters Examiner Appointment Procedures.
  • One graduate advisor who must not have been involved in the supervision of the student or been an examiner of the thesis.

Nomination of examiners, assessors and graduate advisors

11. Appointment recommendations for examiners, assessors and graduate advisors (or nominees) must be approved by the Academic Head before the work is examined. Nominations are submitted to the ESO on an AS-512 form (Part A) by faculty Group Services staff.

12. Changes in the nominations of examiners or assessors must be approved by the Academic Head and submitted to the ESO on an AS-44 form.

Note: for the examination timeline for research components in masters degrees see Appendix IV of the Guidelines for the Administration of Research in Masters Degrees [staff only].

Fee for examiners/assessors

13. Examiners or assessors for theses, research portfolios, dissertations, research essay or research projects appointed from within the New Zealand university system are not paid a fee. The fee paid to appointees from outside the New Zealand university system is set by Universities New Zealand at $125 per assignment.

Examination and assessing

Academic misconduct

14. If suspicions of plagiarism, or other forms of academic misconduct, are identified in one or more examination reports during the course of the examination of the thesis, dissertation, or research portfolio or project, the examination process must be suspended and the procedures as set out in the Student Academic Conduct Statute must be followed.

Dissertations, research essays, and research projects (with a value of 30 to 80 points inclusive); and 90 and 120 point research components of Bachelor Honours degrees, postgraduate diplomas and first 120 points of 240 point masters degrees

15. The examiner will examine the work and provide a recommended grade and/or mark accompanied by a full report that includes the reasons for the recommended grade. The examiner must not consult with any other party during this stage of the examination process.

16. The examiner’s report and a copy of the work under examination will be sent to the assessor. The assessor will assess the work in light of the examiner’s report and provide a written commentary on the appropriateness of the recommended result. The assessor may recommend, with substantiation, an alternative grade for the work.

Actions of the graduate advisor

17. The graduate advisor for the academic unit considers the examiner’s and assessor’s reports, and based on these reports makes a recommendation to the Academic Head in accordance with these procedures.

Note: If upon receipt of the examination reports the graduate advisor considers that an examiner or assessor should be replaced, they may make a recommendation to the Academic Head in writing, outlining the basis of their claim. Disqualification of an examiner or assessor may be warranted in cases where an examiner or assessor does not include justification for the recommended grade or claims insufficient level of expertise, or where an assessor has not assessed the work in light of the examination report. In such cases, the Academic Head may request a revised report or appoint a replacement examiner or assessor.

18. The graduate advisor may, entirely at their discretion, convene and chair a subcommittee of the Departmental Postgraduate Committee in order to consider the examiner and assessor reports and/or examiner and assessor consultation material and act in accordance with these procedures.

19. Where a subcommittee is convened, the subcommittee is subject to the procedural requirements and restrictions prescribed for the graduate advisor at each stage of the process.

Note: there are no circumstances in which a graduate advisor is either required or expected to convene a subcommittee. The Academic Head may not be a member of a subcommittee. No member of a subcommittee may have been involved in the supervision or examination of the work.

20. Where the examiner and assessor reports agree on a recommended result, the graduate advisor must recommend that result to the Academic Head as the final grade.

21. Where the recommendations of the examiner and the assessor agree within ten percentage points and do not cross a class or division of honours, or a pass/fail border, the graduate advisor will either recommend an average of the marks without justification, or recommend, with written justification, a final grade within the margin of the examiner’s and assessor’s recommended grades. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work.

22. Where the recommendations of the examiner and the assessor do not agree to within ten percentage points or where the recommendations cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, the graduate advisor will invite the examiner and assessor to review the reports and to consult and report in writing to the graduate advisor on the outcome of that consultation (unless the graduate advisor regards examiner and assessor consultation as inappropriate and/or unnecessary).

23. If the graduate advisor regards examiner and assessor consultation as inappropriate and/or unnecessary, the graduate advisor may recommend a final grade to the Academic Head only where the graduate advisor also provides a detailed written rationale for that grade in relation to the content of the examiner’s and assessor’s reports. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work. The written rationale for the recommended grade must also address why examiner and assessor consultation was regarded as inappropriate or unnecessary.

24. In cases where the graduate advisor is unable to safely recommend a final grade to the Academic Head due to differences between the examiner and assessor reports, and considers that consultation between examiner and assessor is not appropriate, the graduate advisor must recommend to the Academic Head that the disputed results procedure be followed. The Academic Head may endorse this recommendation or may require the graduate advisor to invite the examiner and assessor to consult.

Consultation between the examiner and the assessor

25. Where the graduate advisor invites the examiner and assessor to review the examiner’s and assessor’s reports and consult and report to the graduate advisor on the outcome, the graduate advisor may also invite the examiner and assessor to consider a grade and rationale proposed by the graduate advisor, based on the two reports.

26. Where the examiner and assessor agree upon a grade, and the graduate advisor is satisfied regarding the integrity of the process and with the rationale provided by the examiner and assessor for agreement on a grade, the graduate advisor must recommend that grade to the Academic Head as the final result. The graduate advisor must report in writing to the Academic Head on the exchange with the examiner and assessor and the integrity of the outcome.

27. Where the examiner and assessor revise their recommendations to within ten percentage points and the recommendations do not cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, and the graduate advisor is satisfied regarding the integrity of the process, the graduate advisor will either:

  • average the marks without justification; or
  • recommend, with written justification in relation to the examiner and assessor reports and consultation, a final result within the margin of the examiner’s and assessor’s revised recommended grades. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work. A report on the exchange with the examiner and assessor must accompany any recommendation to the Academic Head.

28. Where neither the examiner nor the assessor alters their original recommendation, or where revised recommendations do not agree within ten percentage points without crossing a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, rather than recommending a grade on the AS-512T, the graduate advisor must refer all material relating to the examination, including a report on the exchange with the examiner and assessor, to the Academic Head. This report may include the views of the graduate advisor on the examiner’s and assessor’s reports and on the exchange between the examiner and assessor; it must not include examination or assessment of the student’s work by the graduate advisor.

29. The Academic Head will conclude either that the disputed results procedure should be followed or that a safe result is determinable by the Academic Head.

30. Where the graduate advisor is not satisfied regarding the integrity of the consultation process, the graduate advisor must detail this concern to the Academic Head in writing and recommend that the disputed results procedure be followed. The Academic Head may or may not endorse this recommendation.

31. Supervisors and Academic Heads must not participate in the graduate advisor’s deliberations.

Examining theses and research portfolios with a value of 90 points or more (except 90 and 120 point research components of Bachelors Honours degrees, postgraduate diplomas and first 120 points of 240 point masters degrees)

32. The Academic Head and the graduate advisor must not be the same individual. Neither party may have been involved in the supervision of the student nor have examined the thesis.

33. Both examiners will provide a recommended grade and/or mark accompanied by a full report that includes justification for the recommended grade in relation to the grade descriptors on the Examiner’s report form.

34. Examiners’ reports must be written independently and there must be no contact between the examiners (or between examiners and supervisors) on the work under examination, including any discussion intended to produce agreement on a final grade. The only exception is in cases where the examiners have been invited by the graduate advisor to consult with each other as part of the process detailed below.

35. Examiners’ reports will be provided in confidence to the supervisor, who may provide confidential comment on them in writing (within one week) to the graduate advisor. Where provided, the supervisor’s commentary must be restricted to the identification of any factual errors in examination reports and to the clarification of any resource issues raised in the examination reports.

Note: supervisors may not make recourse to other matters, including but not limited to research delays beyond the student’s control, supervisory input, the student’s academic profile, personal life, or performance under supervision. Supervisors may not include an opinion on an appropriate grade for the work.

Actions of the graduate advisor

36. The graduate advisor will consider the examination reports and the examiners’ recommended grades in relation to the grade descriptors provided to the examiners, and based on these reports make a recommendation to the academic head in accordance with these procedures.

Note: if, upon receipt of the examination reports, the graduate advisor considers that an examiner should be replaced, they may make a recommendation to the Academic Head in writing, outlining the basis of their claim. Disqualification of an examiner may be warranted in cases where an examiner does not include justification for the recommended grade or claims an insufficient level of expertise. In such cases, the academic head may request a revised report or appoint a replacement examiner.

37. The graduate advisor may, entirely at their discretion, convene and chair an Examination Committee in order to consider the examiners’ reports and/or consultation material and act in accordance with these procedures. Where a committee is convened, the committee is subject to the procedural requirements and restrictions prescribed for the graduate advisor at each stage of the process.

Note: there are no circumstances in which a graduate advisor is either required or expected to convene an Examination Committee. The academic head may not be a member of an Examination Committee. No member of an Examination Committee may have been involved in the supervision or supervisory team of the student or have been an examiner on the thesis.

38. Where the examination reports agree on a recommended result the graduate advisor must recommend that result to the Academic Head as the final grade.

39. Where the recommendations of the examiners agree within ten percentage points and do not cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, the graduate advisor must either recommend an average of the marks without justification or recommend, with written justification, a final grade within the margin of the examiners’ recommended grades. The recommended result must be based on the examiners’ reports in relation to the grade descriptors. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work.

40. Where their recommendations do not agree to within ten percentage points or cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, the graduate advisor will invite the examiners to review both reports, consult and report in writing to the graduate advisor on the outcome of that consultation (unless the graduate advisor regards examiner consultation as inappropriate and/or unnecessary).

41. If the graduate advisor regards consultation between examiners as inappropriate and/or unnecessary, the graduate advisor may recommend a final grade to the Academic Head only where the graduate advisor also provides a detailed written rationale for that grade in relation to the content of the examination reports and grade descriptors. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work. The written rationale for the recommended grade must also address why examiner consultation was regarded as inappropriate or unnecessary.

42. In cases where the graduate advisor is unable to safely recommend a final grade to the Academic Head due to differences between the examiners’ reports, and considers that consultation between examiners is not appropriate, the graduate advisor must report this conclusion to the Academic Head in writing and recommend that the disputed results procedure be followed. The Academic Head may endorse this recommendation or may require the graduate advisor to invite the examiners to consult.

Consultation between examiners

43. Where the graduate advisor invites the examiners to review both reports, consult and report to the graduate advisor on the outcome, the graduate advisor may also invite the examiners to consider, as part of their consultation, quoted or paraphrased content from the supervisor’s statement, and/or a grade and rationale proposed by the graduate advisor in relation to the examination reports and grade descriptors.

44. Where the examiners agree upon a grade, and the graduate advisor is satisfied regarding the integrity of the consultation process and with the rationale provided by the examiners for agreement on a grade, the graduate advisor is to recommend that grade to the Academic Head as the final result. The graduate advisor must report in writing to the Academic Head on the exchange with the examiners and the integrity of the outcome.

45. Where the examiners revise their recommendations to within ten percentage points and the recommendations do not cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, and the graduate advisor is satisfied regarding the integrity of the process, the graduate advisor will either average the marks without justification, or recommend, with justification in relation to the grade descriptors, the examination reports and the examiner consultation, a final result within the margin of the examiners’ revised recommendations. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work. A report on the exchange with the examiners must accompany any recommendation to the Academic Head.

46. Where neither examiner alters their original recommendation, or where revised recommendations do not agree to within ten percentage points without crossing a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, rather than recommending a grade on the AS-512R, the graduate advisor must refer all material relating to the examination, including a report on the exchange with the examiners, to the Academic Head. This report may include the views of the graduate advisor on the examination reports and the exchange between the examiners in relation to the grade descriptors. The graduate advisor must not examine or assess the student’s work.

47. The Academic Head may conclude that the disputed results procedure should be followed or that a safe result is determinable.

48. Where the graduate advisor is not satisfied regarding the integrity of the consultation process, the graduate advisor must detail this concern to the Academic Head in writing and recommend that the disputed results procedure be followed. The Academic Head may or may not endorse this recommendation.

49. Neither the Academic Head nor any person involved in the supervision of the work under examination may participate in the graduate advisor’s deliberations.

Determination of result - theses, research portfolios, dissertations and research projects

50. In cases where the Academic Head does not endorse the final grade recommended by the graduate advisor, and where that grade did not involve consultation between examiner(s)/assessor, the Academic Head may:

  • discuss the recommended final grade with the graduate advisor; if further information is provided by the graduate advisor or if an alternative final grade is endorsed as a result of that discussion, the additional information and a written report by the Academic Head on that discussion must accompany the endorsed grade; and/or
  • require the graduate advisor to invite the examiner(s)/assessor to consult, with or without reference to the graduate advisor’s recommended final grade; or
  • refer the case to the ADPGR for review as a disputed result. All material relating to the examination must be forwarded to the ADPGR and must be accompanied by a report written by the Academic Head outlining the reasons why it has not proved possible to endorse a final recommended grade.

51. If the recommended final grade involved consultation between examiner(s)/assessor, but the Academic Head has concerns about the safety of the recommended result, the case must be referred to the ADPGR for review as a disputed result. All material relating to the examination must be forwarded to the Associate Dean and must be accompanied by a report written by the Academic Head outlining the reasons why it has not proved possible to endorse a final recommended grade and the substance of the exchange with the examiner(s)/assessor.

52. Where a graduate advisor has recommended that the disputed results procedure be followed, or referred an examination to the Academic Head either with concerns about the integrity of the consultation process or where examiner(s)/assessor recommended grades remain, post consultation, more than ten percentage points apart and/or crossing a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, the Academic Head may:

  • conclude that the disputed results procedure is to be followed, in which case all material relating to the examination must be referred to the ADPGR; the material must be accompanied by a report written by the Academic Head outlining the reasons why it has not proved possible to recommend and endorse a final grade and the substance of any exchange with the examiner(s)/assessor; or
  • require that the graduate advisor invite the examiner(s)/assessor to consult in cases where the graduate advisor has concluded that consultation between examiner(s)/assessor is not appropriate; or
  • identify a final grade where the recommendations of the examiner(s)/assessor are more than ten percentage points apart and/or cross a class or division of honours or a pass/fail border, but the Academic Head considers that a safe result is determinable; or where concerns raised by the graduate advisor about the integrity of the consultation process have been considered and dismissed. In both cases the Academic Head must provide the Associate Dean with written justification regarding the safety of the final grade and its relation to the examination reports, applicable grade descriptors and the consultation process. The Academic Head must not examine or assess the student’s work.

University grade descriptors

Grade A+ to A-

Work of high to exceptionally high quality showing excellent knowledge and understanding of subject matter and appreciation of issues; well formulated arguments based on strong and sustained evidence; maps and diagrams, graphs and tables, etc included where appropriate; relevant literature referenced; high level of creative ability, originality and critical thinking; excellent communication and presentation skills.

Grade Designation % range Grade points
A +
High first
90 – 100
9
A Clear first 85 – 89 8
A - Bare first 80 – 84 7

B+ to B-

Work showing good to strong grasp of subject matter and understanding of major issues though not necessarily of the finer points; arguments clearly developed and based on convincing evidence; relevant literature referenced; evidence of creative ability, originality and critical thinking; good communication and presentation skills.

Grade Designation % range Grade points
B + High second 75 – 79  6
B Clear second 70 – 74  5
B - Bare second 65 – 69  4

C+ to C-

Work showing a knowledge of subject matter and appreciation of main issues though possibly with some lapses and inadequacies; arguments developed and supported by some evidence and references; creative ability, originality and critical thinking present but limited; adequate communication and presentation skills.

Grade Designation % range Grade points
C + Sound pass 60 – 64 3
C Pass 55 – 59  2
C - Marginal pass 50 – 54  1

D+ to D

Work lacking breadth and depth. Work generally has gaps. Frequently work of this grade takes a simple factual approach and understanding and coverage of material is inadequate; does not attempt to interpret the material; at the lower end, indicates a need for considerable effort to achieve improvement; communication and presentation skills are poor.

Grade Designation % range Grade points
D + Marginal fail 45 – 49 0
D Clear fail 40 – 44  0

D-

Highly unsatisfactory. Work shows a lack of knowledge about and understanding of the topic. Inadequate in degree of relevance, sometimes completeness, sometimes both. Communication and presentation skills are weak.

Grade Designation % range Grade points
D - Poor fail 0 – 39  0

Final grades

53. There is a consistent standard for the award of Honours in postgraduate Bachelors Honours and Masters degrees, and Distinction and Merit in Postgraduate Diplomas, and in Masters degrees that do not have a research component of 30 points or above.

  • First Class Honours: GPA of 7.0 or above
  • Second Class Honours (first division): GPA of 5.5 – 6.9
  • Second Class Honours (second division): GPA of 4.0 – 5.4
  • Third Class Honours: GPA of 1.0 – 3.9 (Postgraduate Bachelors Honours degrees only)
  • Distinction: GPA of 7.0 or above
  • Merit: GPA of 5.5 – 6.9

Note: a GPA includes a decimal place only when more than one course is involved. A 120 point programme comprised of a 120 point thesis or research portfolio only ever carries a whole GPA numerical. A ‘B+’ result (GPA of 6) in a 120 point thesis or research portfolio is, therefore, required for the award of Second Class Honours (first division) in a 120 point degree. Second Class Honours (first division) cannot be awarded for a ‘B’ result (GPA of 5).

Rounding is permitted to one decimal place in determining the overall GPA of a qualification (e.g., 5.46 may be rounded to 5.5; 5.75 may not be rounded to 6.0).

Approval of the final result

54. Approval of the final result is normally the responsibility of the ADPGR.

55. If the final grade recommended by the graduate advisor is endorsed by the Academic Head, then that will normally be the final result for the work.

56. The ADPGR may request further information from the graduate advisor or Academic Head or request that the graduate advisor invites the examiner(s)/assessor to consult where such consultation has not already occurred. The ADPGR may determine that individual cases should be reviewed under the disputed results procedure.

Disputed results procedure – theses, research portfolios, dissertations, research essays, and research projects

57. Where it has not been possible to determine a safe final result, the Academic Head must refer the case to the ADPGR for review as a disputed result. All material relating to the examination must be forwarded to the ADPGR. The material must be accompanied by a report written by the forwarding body, outlining the reasons why it has not proved possible to recommend and endorse or approve a final grade and the substance of any exchange with the examiner(s)/assessor.

58. The ADPGR has the power to appoint an external referee, in consultation with the Academic Head where appropriate, who will consider the work under examination and the previous examination/assessment reports and any other information deemed necessary by the ADPGR (this may include the supervisor’s written comments on the examination reports). The external referee will provide a confidential report on the work under examination and the examination process and will recommend a grade for the work.

Note - referral of a case to the ADPGR does not necessarily mean that an external referee will be appointed.

59. This grade will be the final result unless the ADPGR is not satisfied with the integrity of the report, in which case the ADPGR may appoint a replacement external referee. The original examiner(s)/assessor, Academic Head and graduate advisor will be notified of the outcome.

60. The ADPGR may also reset an examination process from any given point, or require expanded written rationales from graduate advisors (or nominees) or Academic Heads or (additional) consultation between examiner(s)/assessor.

61. The powers of the ADPGR detailed under the disputed results procedure also apply to cases (other than theses, research portfolios, dissertations,research essays and research projects) referred by the Examinations Services Office to the ADPGR as part of routine checks.

Examiners' reports - theses and research portfolios

62. Masters thesis and research portfolio candidates will receive the examiners’ evaluations of their work (Part 2 of the Examiners’ reports) when the examination is complete. The candidate will not be informed of the names, or other identifying information, of their examiners. The dean of the faculty (through the Associate Dean (Postgraduate)) reserves the right to remove from an examiner's report made available to the candidate, any material they consider should not be released.

Submission of final results

63. Results for theses and research portfolios are to be submitted on an AS-512R or on an AS-512T form for dissertation and research projects. These forms consist of two parts:

  • Part A: appointment of examiners etc.
  • Part B: recording of recommended grades and final grade for the thesis, dissertation etc.

64. The completed form must be emailed to: results@auckland.ac.nz together with all associated reports (e.g. signed and graded examiners’ reports, supervisor’s commentary where provided).

65. Academic heads must ensure that all sections of the form are completed.

Grievance and appeal procedures

66. A masters student who believes they have been significantly disadvantaged by the examination process, or any part of the examination process of their thesis or research portfolio has recourse to the appeal processes set out in the General Regulations – Masters Degrees.

Note - The Resolution of Student Academic Grievances and Complaints Statute sets out the complaints process to be used by:

  • Bachelor Honours, Postgraduate Diploma and Masters students who completed a research essay or research project of less than 90 points; and
  • Bachelor Honours, Postgraduate Diploma and Year 1 of 240 point Masters students who completed a research component of 90 or 120 points.

Retention of records

Note - See the University’s Records Disposal Authority for records retention periods.

Definitions

The following definitions apply to this document:

Academic unit may refer to a faculty, school, department or Large Scale Research Institute.

Academic Head refers to the Head of the relevant academic unit or their nominee for the purposes of sub-doctoral postgraduate research examinations.

Associate Dean Postgraduate Research (ADPGR) means the person holding the role of Associate Dean Postgraduate (ADPGR) or Associate Director Postgraduate Research (ADPGR) in the faculty or Large Scale Research Institute (RSI) in which the student is enrolled. Another Associate Dean/Associate Director may be nominated to carry out some or all responsibilities with respect to these procedures. For management of conflict of interest concerns, this may include someone holding the ADPGR role in another faculty or LSRI.

Graduate advisor means the advisory role held by an academic within an academic unit. This role may also be known as a postgraduate advisor.

Staff member refers to an individual employed by the University on a full or part-time basis.

Outside the University of Auckland - people holding honorary positions at the University of Auckland are not considered to be outside the University.

University means the University of Auckland and includes all subsidiaries.

Key relevant documents

Document management and control

Owner: Pro Vice-Chancellor Education
Content manager: Examinations Services Manager; Manager, Academic Quality
Approved by: Council
Date approved: 9 December 2020
Review date: 31 December 2021