The Student Room Group

Is it worth appealing my degree classification due to the rounding policy?

Hi everyone,

I’m seeking advice on whether my case is worth appealing.

The issue stems from my university’s policy of rounding module marks to the nearest whole number for final classification calculations. Three of my module marks were rounded down (e.g., 54.4 to 54, 64.3 to 64, 68.4 to 64, etc.), which resulted in my final average dropping to 5.98, just below the Merit threshold (which requires a 6.0).

Had these scores not been rounded, my final average would have been 6.02, which clearly meets the Merit classification standard. However, the rounding process has left me in a situation where I do not meet the required Merit threshold, even though my raw scores reflect a Merit level of academic achievement.

Because of this, I am now facing the issue of academic discretion, which I don’t meet because my project score is below 60. But my concern is not to change the project score or use academic discretion to override the 60 requirement for the project. Rather, I am asking if the university can reconsider my case in light of the significant impact that the rounding of module marks has had on my final classification. This is a technical issue, where the system’s reliance on rounding has unfairly impacted my academic outcome.

I am hoping the university will take this into consideration and offer an exception based on the systematic impact of the rounding process, which seems to have led to an unfair result. Essentially, my actual performance, if calculated without rounding, meets the Merit standard.

I’m wondering if anyone else has faced a similar situation where rounding has impacted their degree classification or if you think my appeal has a chance. Should I go ahead and submit the appeal based on this reasoning, or would it be better to accept the classification?

Thanks for any advice or guidance you can offer!
You can only appeal on procedural grounds normally, i.e. that a procedure was not followed correctly leading to loss to yourself. Does the university have a formally defined process for rounding? If so, did they follow it? If yes, then I don't think you have any grounds for appealing.

If they have a rounding policy but did not follow it correctly, then that may be grounds for an appeal. I suspect they will have one so I don't think a lack of rounding policy is going to be the situation here.

Note also usually they don't just consider individual module marks in isolation when considering classifications/results for awards but will look at the overall performance, and especially for marks near the classification/grade boundaries they tend to scrutinize the whole case closely as I understand. So I suspect they will have evaluated this already in any event so an appeal may not necessarily change anything (although if there is grounds for an appeal then there's no reason not to).
Original post by ANONYMOUS-uk
Thank you for your response.

Our school policy states: "Modules are marked against a 0-100 marking scale. For the purposes of classification for candidates who commenced their studies before 2022/23 and candidates of full-time taught postgraduate programmes and one-year intercalated programmes who commenced their studies in 2022/23, module marks are converted to a 0.00 to 10.00 Classification Average scale expressed to two decimal places and rounded accordingly."

However, this policy only refers to the 0-100 scale for individual modules and does not specifically address the rounding of marks. For weighted averages, the policy mentions rounding to two decimal places, but it does not explain the approach for integer rounding at the module level. This gap in the policy is especially relevant for my case since, due to rounding, my final average dropped by 0.02, causing my classification to fall below the Merit threshold.

Regarding the 0.1 academic discretion for borderline cases, I understand that it applies to students whose project mark meets the 60-point requirement. However, my argument is that my real weighted average is 6.02, meeting the Merit standard, but was reduced due to the technical issue of rounding. In my opinion, this systemic loss should be treated differently than academic discretion. I am not seeking to change my project mark but instead requesting that the impact of the rounding system be considered as a special circumstance.

I would like to know if I can appeal based on this technical issue, given that my actual performance already meets the Merit standard, and I feel that the current policy fails to adequately address this specific problem.

Thank you for your advice!


The way I read this is module marks will be given to two decimal places, then rounded accordingly. Which following conventional rounding approaches (which to be fair - there may be some claim in the fact they have not actually documented this specifically), for anything up to 0.49 would be rounded down and anything from 0.5-0.99 rounded up. It does also read to me that they round at the module level, rather than at the overall result level.

I think your best bet for an appeal would be on the basis they don't define how they round up/down and in what cases explicitly. I'm not sure it's an especially strong case but I don't work in that area so maybe it will hold enough water to go somewhere! That said I suspect the outcome is not going to change your grade, it will lead to them updating the policy with clearer language about how/when they round and issuing you an apology for the lack of clarity.

So I wouldn't get your hopes up overly much...however I think it probably would be worth bringing to your Student Union to discuss whether an appeal may be feasible and worthwhile in this case (and what they can do to support you in making one).

Quick Reply