Aegrotat grades: How much is fair and adequate?

Content Partner: Lincoln University. In New Zealand Universities, aegrotat grade decisions must be fair, valid and consistent, and require that “work undertaken during the paper reached an adequate standard” (CUAP, 2013, 4.3). There is inherent variability in all assessment and aegrotat predictions more so since they depend on less evidence. Simulations of aegrotat predictions which compare “predicted” with actual exam marks show there is an uncomfortably wide margin of error (Agnew & Hickson, 2012; Hickson & Agnew, 2013; McKeown & Maclean, 2010; Obben, 2011). However, the examiner must award some definitive grade rather than a grade band. Given the predicted aegrotat mark, the grade decision ultimately depends on a subjective or normative judgment of what is adequate in relation to the margin of error, and a consequential judgment on where the burden of proof lies. A conservative judgment would rather underestimate than overestimate the mark. A liberal judgment shifts the burden of proof and would rather overestimate than underestimate the mark. Since this judgment has significant consequences, the definition of “adequate standard” is the most contentious issue for aegrotat decisions. Aegrotat provisions can be seen as a form of insurance which makes up lost exam marks. This acknowledges the asymmetric information and directs attention to the incentives created by any aegrotat policy, including moral hazard. Discounting the predicted mark is equivalent to an excess which determines how much of the loss is made good and how much is borne by the student. This analogy offers a pragmatic justification for a definition of “adequate standard” with respect to the margin of prediction error. It remains that a value judgment must be made as to what grade we are confident the aegrotated student has earned or deserves, and this depends on how we define fairness and the adequate standard used.