The School of Biosciences marking criteria for work and assessments is immensely flawed, and is costing creativity, ingenuity and originality across the University of Liverpool’s biological sector.

The strict adherence to a prescribed format which entails keeping to an overwhelmingly stressful deadline, constrictive word count and overtly dull sense of writing criteria cannot be good for the future quality of students. It seems as if the University wants to cultivate one type of student ONLY, rather than embracing each student’s own individuality.

Whilst it is understandable that the University is just following what academia is in itself – it is of our belief that the School of Biosciences and the University should go against this and foster a more independent and inclusive approach of teaching their students and assessing them. Especially so, if they are a leading University in research – they have the power and reach to enact considerable change.

A major criticism of the University’s marking criteria is that, while there is an objective rubric for each assessment, this is entirely to the whim of one professor’s opinion/subjectivity when he/she administers it. One professor may be courteous and relaxed in marking, whilst another can be unreasonably harsh. Also, the inter-generational discrepancy within the University may affect marking as well. A professor from a more traditional background may see that 60% marking is excellent, whilst another from a more recent/progressive background may see that 70% marking is excellent instead. This imbalance of marking is detrimental to the University’s status, especially when considering grade inflation that is abound amongst every university in the UK.

There is an understanding that a review is administered at the end of every academic year. However, a more immediate approach into making University marking more objective and less subjective would generate less stress/anxiety for students. Students, like ourselves, are continuously afraid at what the next professor’s sense of marking will be – wherever they will be courteous or harsh.

This is just one of many example's which affect our learning.

Something ultimately needs to be changed in the School of Biosciences, and perhaps the University of Liverpool as a whole.

Here is a list of issues that we have with the marking criteria of the School of Biosciences in the UoL:

• Unrealistic word counts - Word counts are too small and do not allow for any creative freedom. We're all just forced to list facts, meaning all work submitted by students just reads the same. This extremely hinders critical thinking, creativity, flow, and synthesis.
• In-text citations counting towards word count - We sacrifice assignment content and “synthesis” because our word count can’t afford to reference more than one paper for a sentence.
• Lack of exemplars (e.g. 100% model answers) - It’s impossible to meet unclear expectations without being shown what success actually looks like. Particularly in essay-based or critical thinking assignments. After an assignment is submitted/when feedback is released, a “100%” piece of work should be submitted to highlight what was expected.
• Vague or contradictory marking rubrics - Rubrics often use unclear language (e.g. "demonstrate critical thinking") without clarifying what this looks like in writing. This also leads to subjective marking of assessors.
• Feedback being vague or unhelpful - Some markers give feedback like “needs more depth” or “lacks analysis” without specifying how or where. Actionable feedback is crucial for learning.
• Inconsistent feedback between markers - Students get different feedback from different lecturers for doing the same thing, making improvement feel impossible.
• Plagiarism paranoia making referencing stressful - Encourages robotic writing where we’re afraid to phrase things in our own words, just in case it gets flagged by Turnitin. Not great for actual understanding. Also when things are written grammatically correctly in papers, students are forced to reinvent the sentence structure in an imperfect manner.
• Overly rigid formatting rules - Too much emphasis on style guides (Harvard, APA, etc.) over actual content quality. Minor errors in formatting can disproportionately affect marks.
• Feedback arriving after the next assignment is released - Students are expected to complete assignments for harsh deadlines and assessors should have to adhere to similarly strict deadlines. “General feedback” is clearly used to claim feedback has been given at an earlier date than reality as general feedback is useless.
• No training or support on how to critique/ synthesise papers - We’re told to "synthesise" but not taught how, especially when our word count limits us from doing so meaningfully. This is something we have to attempt to learn from failure to do so in previous assignments, this encourages a disheartening method of learning. Strictly from failure.
• Lecturers marking on “gut feeling” or subjective interpretations -Some assessments seem to be more about writing in the “lecturer’s style” than showing understanding or originality. Some comments are even flawed in understanding themselves, highlighting lack of care/incompetence of those assessing students
• Lack of recognition for interdisciplinary thinking - Students who bring in knowledge from psychology/philosophy/tech/evolution/etc. aren’t always rewarded, even when it’s relevant.