Marks: JKC top line and MPA bottom line with differences highlighted in red

Student	Answer 1	Answer 2	Answer 3	Answer 4	Answer 5
Mark Anthony Farnworth	5 5	4 4	3 2	5 5	7 7.5
Noreen Hanif	3 3	3 3	4 4	5 5	7 7
Lakshminarayanan Rajamani	2 2	2 2	1 1	5 4	5 6
Fraser Sinclair Rowan	3 4	4 4	5 5	5 5	7 6
Wolfgang Seidl	5 5	4 3	4 4	5 5	9 9.5
Robert John Whittock	3 3	2 2	5 5	4 3	5 5

ACTION

After discussions with MPA, the following action was taken by JKC.

1. Farnworth. Q3. Decrease to 2 marks since first error very bad). Q5. Increase to 8 marks since (ii) marked harshly first time
2. Hanif. No change
3. Rajamani. Q4. Decrease to 4 marks since insufficient workings shown in answer. Q5. Leave as 5 marks with penalty mark for lack of explanation, but apply equally to Rowan
4. Rowan. Q1. Leave as 3 marks with marks deducted for two errors. Q5. Decrease to 6 marks using a penalty mark so as to be consistent with Rajamani
5. Seidl. Q3. Reduce to 3 marks since the "why" not explained in (ii). Q5. Leave as 9 marks since answer to (ii) not as good as by Farnworth; neither students' answer being ideal
6. Whittock. Q4. Leave as 4 marks since there is only 1 error though it propagates

Student marked work adjusted accordingly (with revised comments where appropriate).
[DONE by JKC 26/2/01]

Question 2 was also discussed at some length. In particular, it was felt that the marks should reallocated 2 to 3 with respect to parts (i) and (ii). Also the question should be rephrased so that it includes "why" for part (i). In addition, it was decided that the order of the symmetry elements in question 5 should be changed so that easier operators given directly in the course material appear before more the challenging ones. Also questions 3 and 4 swopped in terms of order.
[DONE by JKC 26/2/01]

Back