We, the members of the current Psychology cohort, are writing to express our deep concern and disappointment regarding the recent decision to conduct closed-book essay examinations for our modules.
This decision feels profoundly unfair, particularly when compared with the conditions under which the year above us were assessed. They completed online, open-book, 48-hour exams, yet we are expected to sit traditional, time-limited exams, despite competing for the same graduate jobs, internships, and opportunities. The discrepancy places our cohort at a clear disadvantage and raises questions about the consistency and fairness of assessment across year groups.
We also wish to highlight the unreasonable volume of in-person assessments we are expected to complete. Our cohort faces five in-person exams, two of which are essay-based, each demanding mastery of an extensive amount of material. Preparing effectively for this scale of content within a short timeframe is simply unrealistic. The mental load, combined with the pressure of closed-book conditions, places an immense strain on students’ wellbeing and undermines our ability to demonstrate our knowledge to the best of our ability.
Moreover, many of us feel misled by how the course and its assessment methods were originally marketed. During open days, on the University website, and throughout the admissions process, assessments were presented as primarily open-book multiple-choice based. The sudden shift to closed-book essay exams, with no prior indication or consultation, represents a significant departure from what we believed we were signing up for.
Students are feeling deeply overwhelmed and anxious because of this change. The transition from coursework and open-book assessments to high-stakes, closed-book essay exams feels like an impossible task to prepare for adequately within the existing time frame. This has left many feeling unsupported and unprepared.
We must also highlight the conflicting information provided on Minerva and through other departmental communications, which has added further confusion and uncertainty. Students deserve clear, consistent, and transparent guidance about how they will be assessed.
As fee paying students, we believe our fees should entitle us to a fair and consistent academic experience. We urge the department to reconsider this decision be that aligning our assessment format with that of previous cohorts, providing extended support and thorough guidance at the beginning of term, or at the very least, opening a dialogue that genuinely takes student feedback into account. This change to our current format does not need to be drastic, but a gradual transition ensuring aid and reassurance, without leaving student feeling blindsided.
This is not simply a matter of convenience, it is about fairness, transparency, and student wellbeing. We hope the department will recognise the impact this decision has had on our cohort and take meaningful steps to address it.
Sincerely,
The 2024–2027/28 Psychology Cohort
University of Leeds