Xiaohongshu
What would you like the union to work on?
We believe that UCL students should have guaranteed, equitable and transparent access to meaningful exam-style practice for any high-stakes assessment, so that grades reflect learning rather than familiarity with exam formats.
We therefore ask Students’ Union UCL and the elected Education Officer(s) to adopt a policy that the Union will lobby UCL (including the Vice-Provost Education & Student Experience, Education Committee, Academic Services and Library Services) to introduce a university-wide requirement that:
- For any summative written exam component that contributes 30% or more of the final mark for a module, students must be provided with at least one of:
- a past exam paper, or
- A full-length mock or specimen exam paper which closely matches the real exam’s format, length, structure and level of difficulty.
This material must be made easily accessible to all enrolled students in at least one clearly signposted, official UCL space, such as the UCL Electronic Exam Papers Service / Library Digital Collections and/or the relevant Moodle or AssessmentUCL space for the module.
The practice paper(s) should match the current syllabus and exam format; if the exam format has significantly changed, departments should provide a new sample exam in the new format rather than relying solely on outdated papers. As a minimum, practice papers should include basic guidance on marking (for example, indicative marks per question, expected depth of answers, or exemplar / indicative answers for at least one question).
Where departments believe it is genuinely not possible to release real past papers (for example, because of very small and re-used question banks or external accreditation constraints), they must still provide an equivalent alternative, such as a full-length mock exam, a specimen question booklet, or a timed Moodle or AssessmentUCL practice test that mirrors exam conditions, timing and coverage.
New or redesigned modules with no past papers must still provide at least one sample or mock exam for any exam worth 30% or more of the module mark.
We ask that this requirement be written into Chapter 4 of the UCL Academic Manual (Assessment Framework for Taught Programmes), so that “minimum assessment information” explicitly includes exam-style practice materials for high-stakes exams, and be embedded in the workflow for submitting exam papers to the Central Assessment Team and Library Services, so that exam setters are routinely prompted to provide a past or mock paper for future cohorts and to deposit eligible papers in the Electronic Exam Papers Service.
We also ask the Union to:
- Encourage union officers and academic reps to campaign on this requirement in relevant UCL committees;
- Work with Library Services and departments to produce clear guidance for staff on how to upload past papers or create mock papers.
- Work with academic reps and staff-student committees to monitor implementation, collecting examples of good practice and gaps where no practice papers are available; and
- Produce student-facing guidance on how to use past papers and mock exams healthily and effectively (for example, as part of retrieval practice and spaced learning), and include this in rep training and the Student Priorities for Education work.
Why would you like to do this?
Access to past exam papers and realistic practice exams at UCL is currently patchy and often depends on which department a student happens to be in, even where exams make up a substantial proportion of a module’s mark.
UCL’s central policies require departments to provide “accurate and up-to-date information for each assessment task”, but they do not guarantee the provision of exam-style practice materials, such as past papers or mock exams. UCL Library operates the Electronic Exam Papers Service and guidance indicates that the last three to five years of papers are normally available online. However, the archive is incomplete because some departments choose not to supply papers or withhold particular formats such as multiple-choice, meaning that students in different programmes face very different levels of exam transparency.
Students normally cannot see their own exam scripts, which are retained for only a limited period. For many high-stakes exams, a past or mock paper is one of the only ways students can see what a real UCL exam looks like and how marks are allocated.
Students’ Union UCL’s Student Priorities for Education reports, including the 2025 report, highlight ongoing concerns about assessment transparency, workload and feedback quality. Under “Examples of Best Practice”, they explicitly recommend that past exam papers should be uploaded to Moodle. If best practice is that past exam papers are on Moodle, but there is no requirement for this, then access to exam-style practice is left to departmental culture and individual staff goodwill rather than being a basic academic entitlement.
Several comparator universities already treat access to past exam papers or equivalent mock exams as a standard part of teaching and learning, routinely directing students to past papers via central library systems or virtual learning environments and, in some cases, committing to provide papers, marking schemes and model answers as part of normal support. Within UCL, some faculties (for example, Mathematical & Physical Sciences) have also produced guidance recommending that every module provide an example paper with indicative answers and additional practice opportunities where possible.
However, this good practice is not yet embedded across the institution, so students in other faculties may receive far less support even when facing equally high-stakes assessments.
Educational research strongly supports practice testing – including practice exams, past papers and mock questions – as one of the most effective ways to improve learning and exam performance. Reviews and meta-analyses on the “testing effect” show that practising with test-style questions and spacing study over time improves long-term retention and transfers to new contexts. There is also evidence that practice exams can support educational equity by reducing performance gaps linked to prior exam experience: students who are less familiar with UK-style exam formats, timing and mark schemes particularly benefit from transparent practice papers that make expectations explicit.
Focusing the policy on exams worth 30% or more of the module mark is therefore a proportionate and realistic approach: it targets the highest-stakes assessments, where a single exam can significantly affect degree outcomes, and avoids undue burden on staff for small quizzes or low-stakes tests.
What effect will this have on student life?
If implemented, this policy would have a clear, positive, and measurable impact on students’ lives by improving how they prepare for high-stakes assessments and making assessment practices more transparent and equitable.
For all students facing exams worth 30% or more of a module mark, the policy would:
Reduce uncertainty about exam format, structure and expectations, so students no longer have to rely on rumours or informal sharing of old questions;
Support more effective revision by enabling students to practise under conditions that resemble the real exam (timed practice, similar question style and coverage of learning outcomes); and
Reduce exam-related anxiety by clarifying what a real UCL exam looks like and giving students a realistic opportunity to rehearse.
The policy would particularly benefit:
- First-generation, state-educated and widening-participation students, who may be less familiar with the “hidden rules” of exam technique;
- international students adapting to new exam formats and conventions;
- Disabled and neurodivergent students (for example, autistic students or those with ADHD or anxiety), for whom uncertainty about exam formats can compound accessibility challenges; and
- Students on programmes with many high-stakes exams (such as STEM, health sciences and law), where slight differences in exam performance can have outsized consequences for progression and classification.
By making exam-style practice an entitlement rather than something provided only where departments already prioritise it, the policy helps to reduce structural inequalities between programmes and faculties.
The policy would also clarify responsibilities among central services, faculties, and departments, helping ensure that the existing UCL Electronic Exam Papers Service and Moodle are used consistently rather than relying on individual staff preferences. It would encourage more coherent communication of assessment information, bringing together module information, readings and exam preparation resources in one place, and contribute to UCL’s broader work on inclusive and fair assessment by embedding existing examples of good practice across the whole institution.
While there will be some additional work for staff in modules that currently provide no past or mock papers, many departments already upload past papers; for them, the policy formalises and spreads existing practice. Where genuine constraints exist, departments retain flexibility to provide alternative mock or specimen materials. The necessary infrastructure already exists, and implementation could be phased (for example, prioritising the highest-weight exams first), making the proposal realistic and proportionate.
Overall, the effect on student life would be to make UCL’s assessment environment fairer, more transparent and less stressful, while aligning UCL more closely with sector norms and clearly demonstrating that Students’ Union UCL is acting on students’ stated priorities for education.