Grades of Year 1 LLB students for the 2016-2017 academic year

Yn disgwyl am adolygiad mewnol gan London School of Economics o'u triniaeth o'r cais hwn.

Dear London School of Economics,

Would it be possible to obtain the following:
1. The individual exam scores (anonymized) of all Year 1 LLB Students in the 2016-17 academic year for the Intermediate LLB examinations (LL104 Law of Obligations, LL105 Property I, LL106 Public Law, LL108 Criminal Law and LL109 Introduction to the Legal System)?
2. Alternatively, general statistics on the aforementioned examinations (mean, median, 5th,25th,75th,95th percentile scores)?

Yours faithfully,
Daniel Leung

GLPD.Info.Rights, London School of Economics

Dear Daniel,

 

With reference to your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, please find below the School's response. We cannot
provide actual marks as these are the personal data of the students
concerned and therefore exempt under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act. Instead, we have provided the mean, etc.

 

+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|Module  |Mean |Median |Q5 |Q25 |Q75 |Q95 |
|---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+------|
|LL104 | 60.52| 62| 47| 57| 65| 70|
|---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+------|
|LL105 | 62.43| 62| 55.55| 60| 66| 70|
|---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+------|
|LL106 | 60.52| 61| 49.8| 58| 64| 70|
|---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+------|
|LL108 | 60.50| 62| 46.5| 58| 65| 70|
|---------+---------+---------+---------+-------+-------+------|
|LL109 | 61.67| 62| 56| 60| 65| 68|
+--------------------------------------------------------------+

 

 

If you think that the information provided does not meet your request,
contact me on 020 7849 4622  or write to Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal
Team,  Governance, Legal and Policy Division, London School of Economics
and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE. We will then
review the response to your request and get back to you within 20 working
days. You can also contact the Information Commissioner's Office
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/, though they expect the internal review to be
carried out before receiving a complaint directly.

 

The provision of information by the LSE under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 does not imply a right to copy, reproduce publish or otherwise
use such information.

 

Copying or reproducing such information in any way either in whole or in
part without prior written consent may be an infringement of copyright or
other intellectual property right belonging to the LSE or a third party.

 

Yours sincerely,

Rachael Maguire

Records Manager

London School of Economics

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear London School of Economics,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of London School of Economics's handling of my FOI request 'Grades of Year 1 LLB students for the 2016-2017 academic year'.

I think the data I have requested under the first part of my request (the individual exam scores (anonymized) of all Year 1 LLB Students in the 2016-17 academic year for the Intermediate LLB examinations (LL104 Law of Obligations, LL105 Property I, LL106 Public Law, LL108 Criminal Law and LL109 Introduction to the Legal System)) does not constitute 'personal data' under the s40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Under s40(7) of FOIA 2000, "personal data" has the same meaning as personal data under s1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, which provides that:

“personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified—
(a)from those data, or
(b)from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,
and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual;

Clearly, the "living individuals" to which the data relates cannot be identified from those data, if, as per my request, the data and names of the students are anonymised.

I sent University College London an identical request for information and the information I requested was given, which suggests that the data and legal departments of other universities do not view the data I requested as "personal data": https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e....

However, I understand, that in light of the 'motivated intruder' data protection principle (please read my correspondence with UCL for more information on this), it may not be possible for the results in each particular examination to be correlated to each other. If this is LSE's judgment as well, I would like to make a request for information on the average grades (the weighted mean of their scores in each module in proportion to the credit value of the module*) of all students in the cohort.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/g...

Yours faithfully,
Daniel Leung

*Since Property I and Introduction to the Legal System are half-unit subjects, in calculating the average scores, I suggest that the following formulae be used:

TOTAL SCORE = (Criminal Law score) + (Law of Obligations score) + (Public Law Score) + (Property I score) x 0.5 + (ILS Score) x 0.5

AVERAGE SCORE = TOTAL SCORE / 5

Dear London School of Economics,

Apologies but the formulae I provided for calculating the weighted mean of an individual's grades is incorrect. Here is the correct version:

TOTAL SCORE = (Criminal Law score) + (Law of Obligations score) + (Public Law score) + (Property I score) x 0.5 + (Introduction to the Legal System score) x 0.5

AVERAGE SCORE = TOTAL SCORE / 4

It would be great if you could provide the information I requested, should the internal review be successful, in excel format.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Yours faithfully,
Daniel Leung

Dear London School of Economics,

Just a reminder that 16 August 2017 (today) marks 20 working days, by which normally the internal review should be completed.

Thank you for your help in advance.

Yours faithfully,

Daniel Leung

Haynes,KJ, London School of Economics

Dear Mr Leung

 

I am sorry it has taken us so long to respond to your appeal.  The delay
has been primarily due to relevant members of staff being away from the
School.

 

This said, I have an opportunity to think about this case though I remain
slightly confused by your appeal.  Are you in the first instance asking
for each mark of each LLB student who sat all of the five courses listed
in your appeal?  I ask because the UCL response you have sent us seems to
suggest that you only received the average mark of each LLB student?  Is
this type of response what you are requesting from us in your penultimate
paragraph?

 

Best wishes, Kevin

 

Kevin Haynes

Legal Team

Governance, Legal and Policy Division

Room 1KW.3

London School of Economics and Political Science

Houghton Street

WC2A 2AE

 

020 7955 7823

 

 

Dear Mr. Haynes,

Apologies for the confusion caused by my internal review request.

As you stated, my primary request is for each mark of each LLB student who sat all of the five courses listed
in my first message i.e. Student A received A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 on LL104, LL105, LL106, LL108, LL109 respectively;
Student B received B1, B2, B3, B4, B5; Student C received C1, C2, C3, C4, C5; etc. ("Request 1")

I would like to request for an internal review on "Request 1".

However, if the internal review is unsuccessful (as "Request 1" would entail release of "personal data" as defined in FOIA 2000), I would like to request for information on:
b) all of the marks in each of the LLB Intermediate Examinations i.e. the scores for LL104 were A, B, C, D, E...; the scores for LL105 were F, G, H, I, J, K...; etc ("Request 2")
c) the average mark of each LLB student ("Request 3")

With UCL, I submitted "Request 1" but they refused to give me this information and instead gave me information on "Request 2". I then submitted "Request 3" and they provided this information to me.

In summary, the best-case scenario for me would be to receive information on "Request 1". But if this is not possible, as it would entail release of personal data as defined in FOIA 2000, please provide me with information on "Request 2" and "Request 3".

For the reasons stated in my initial internal review request, I believe "Request 1", Request 2" and "Request 3" (particularly 2 and 3) do not entail release of "personal data" as defined in the FOIA 2000.

Hopefully the above explanation clarifies matters.

Please conduct an internal review as soon as possible, as the 20 working day deadline has passed.

Thank you for all your kind assistance.

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Leung

Dear London School of Economics,

Given that it is past the twenty working day deadline, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with the results of the internal review as soon as possible or at least an update as to the progress of the request.

Thank you very much for your kind assistance.

Yours faithfully,
Daniel Leung

GLPD.Info.Rights, London School of Economics

Dear Daniel,

We are aware that your internal review response is overdue which is due to staff absences. Your request is being investigated and a response should be with you next week.

Regards,
Rachael Maguire
Records Manager
London School of Economics

Haynes,KJ, London School of Economics

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Leung

 

I write in response to your request for an internal review of your freedom
of information request, which you originally submitted to us on 23 June
2017.  I apologise for the length of time it has taken me to complete this
review. 

 

In your request, you asked for the marks of each student who had studied
LL104, LL105, LL106 and LL109 in 2016/17.  In our response of 18 July
2017, we withheld the marks of each student for these courses under
Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the basis that it
constituted the personal information of each student under the Data
Protection Act 1998, and to disclose it would contravene one or more of
the data protection principles in this latter Act.  However, we did
provide you with the mean and median collective scores for each course, as
well as those of the 5^th, 25^th, 75^th and 95^th percentiles.  You
appealed against this decision on 19 July 2017, arguing among other things
that another university had responded with average grades of each of the
candidates who studied the equivalent courses at that institution.

 

I have now reviewed the situation with regard to the information that we
hold on file and our position under the relevant legislation, particularly
that of the Data Protection Act.  I am satisfied on this occasion that we
were correct to withhold individual marks on grounds that they do
constitute the personal information of the students, and their expectation
would be for our university to keep this information confidential. 
Moreover, I am not confident that their identity would be protected in
light of the combination of some marks and our publishing the final
classification of each student.  However, I appreciate that this concern
is greatly reduced by restricting the data to an average mark for each
candidate for the four modules.  This being the case, I have attached a
list of the averages achieved by each of the 166 candidates for the four
law courses, in numerical order. 

 

I hope this information is helpful.  If you are dissatisfied with it, or
the way we have handled your request, you can approach the [1]Information
Commissioner’s Office to ask for an external review of our positon.

 

Please note that the School retains ownership, including the copyright, of
the attached information.  You should therefore seek our permission before
you copy or reproduce it.

 

Best wishes, Kevin

 

Kevin Haynes

Legal Team

Governance, Legal and Policy Division

Room 1KW.3

London School of Economics and Political Science

Houghton Street

WC2A 2AE

 

020 7955 7823

 

Dear Mr Haynes,

I was wondering whether the average mark is the weighed mean of all five Year 1 LLB courses (LL104, LL105, LL106, LL108 and LL109) in proportion to their course value (LL104, LL106 and LL108 being full units and LL105 and LL109 being half units) -- in other words, whether the average was calculated using this formula:

TOTAL SCORE = (Criminal Law score) + (Law of Obligations score) + (Public Law score) + (Property I score) x 0.5 + (Introduction to the Legal System score) x 0.5

AVERAGE SCORE = TOTAL SCORE / 4

I ask this because you state that you have provided data on the "averages achieved by each of the 166 candidates for the four law courses" when there are five law courses.

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Leung

Dear Mr. Haynes,

To add to my previous message, I know several students' average grades but am unable to find the corresponding entry or data in the table, which suggests there may potentially be an error in the data compilation or computation?

Thanks for all your kind assistance.

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Leung

Dear GLPD.Info.Rights,

I was wondering whether the average mark is the weighed mean of all five Year 1 LLB courses (LL104, LL105, LL106, LL108 and LL109) in proportion to their course value (LL104, LL106 and LL108 being full units and LL105 and LL109 being half units) -- in other words, whether the average was calculated using this formula:

TOTAL SCORE = (Criminal Law score) + (Law of Obligations score) + (Public Law score) + (Property I score) x 0.5 + (Introduction to the Legal System score) x 0.5

AVERAGE SCORE = TOTAL SCORE / 4

I ask this because you state that you have provided data on the "averages achieved by each of the 166 candidates for the four law courses" when there are five law courses.

In addition, I know several students' average grades but am unable to find the corresponding entry or data in the table, which suggests there may potentially be an error in the data compilation or computation?

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Leung