Third year Warwick History students mistakenly given two hours to sit exam, rather than three

Yesterday, final year Warwick History students undertook an exam in the compulsory module, Historiography. People entered the exam expecting to sit a three hour paper, however invigilators told selected students they would only have two hours to complete the exam.

The invigilators stated that for those students who had written their dissertation on the Historiography module, they were only to have two hours to complete the exam, instead of the expected three hours, leaving students feeling confused.

According to those who sat the exam, the invigilator made clear that they should complete two questions instead of three.

Sophie, a third year student who took the exam, told The Tab: “They told six of us who did Historiography dissertations on the day that our exam was only two hours, when we had been preparing for the three hour paper – so it just screwed us over!

“I went to see Dan Branch, the head of the department, straight after and he said it was a mistake and we should have answered a third question.”

Sophie was reassured by Mr Branch the mistake will not alter their marks, sending an email out to students straight away.  He reassured affected students they will not be disadvantaged, with marks from the two essays being averaged out.

In the email that was sent to the affected students, Head of History, Mr Branch said: “I’m extremely sorry about the confusion around the Historiography exam. I know that you all expected and were prepared to sit a 3 hour exam paper.”

Branch informed students the error was due to a misprint over instructions for the exam. Branch said that the module convenor, Charles Walton, “found that the exam was listed as a two and three hour exam, hence his instruction to you all to complete the exam within two hours. The information given to Charles was incorrect and I am looking into why this was given to him.”

Branch also reassured students the marks for the module, and overall degree classification, will not be influenced as a result. Branch stated: “We will check and double check your exam marks to ensure that these are accurate and that you have not been disadvantages as a result of our mistake. We will also inform our external examiners of the issue and they will also check the same.”

Despite this, Sophie remains a little concerned that the error could make a difference to her grade. She told us: “I still think it is unfair and we are at a disadvantage. I think to cover their own mistake they are trying to reassure us it won’t make a difference, but it definitely could.”

Sam, another student who was also embroiled in the confusion, praised the History department for responding to the mistake very quickly. He said that although it was “frustrating and confusing at the time… the department have dealt with it really well since then”.

Sam spoke admirably of Mr Branch, telling The Tab: “He was very apologetic and said he would ensure that our marks didn’t suffer as a result”.