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

Student	Answer 1	Answer 2	Answer 3	Answer 4	Answer 5	Answer 6
Mark Anthony Farnworth	16 17	1 1	4 4	3 3	3 3	8 8.5
Noreen Hanif	16 16	1 1	4 4	2.5 2.5	3 3	8 8.5
Lakshminarayanan Rajamani	12 11	3 3	4 4	3 3	3 3	1 1
Wolfgang Seidl	15 16	1 1	4 4	3 3	3 3	8 7.5
Robert John Whittock	3 3	1 1	4 4	3 3	3 3	6 6

ACTION

After discussions with MPA, the following actions were taken by JKC.

1. Farnworth. Q1. Increase by 1 mark to 17. Q6. Increase to 9 marks total.
2. Hanif. Q6. Increase to 8.5 marks
3. Rajamani. Q1. Increase to 14 (see general comment below).
4. Seidl. Q1. Increase by 1 mark to 16. Q6. Reduce to 7.5 marks.
5. Whittock. No change.

Student marked work adjusted accordingly (with revised comments where appropriate).
[DONE by JKC 24/4/01]

A problem was highlighted with question 1 in the assignment since the question did not specifically request students to show their workings. This could be changed for next year. Question could be broken up more so that marks are identifiable to the students.

Also possibly reduce marks for the routine bits that students always get right, e.g. polarisation and Lorentz factor.

Question 6 would be better if more directed, e.g. if students were given a list of possible effects and asked to comment on them. It would also be much quicker to mark.

Suggestion that MPA produce a better assignment?
[ACTION required by MPA]

Back