Wide disparities at University of Copenhagen law exams revealed

Most students know the feeling: You leave the exam room with a clear sense of how it went. Maybe you were sure of getting a solid 10 on the Danish grading system. But you ended up with only a mid-range grade of 4. Or perhaps you left feeling unsure of yourself — only to be positively surprised by the maximum grade of 12.

Grading can feel like a bit of a lottery, where you either draw the winning ticket or come up empty-handed. Former law student at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH) Morten Kromann knows that feeling. During his studies, he sometimes experienced that a grade depended more on which examiner he got — than on his actual exam performance.

»It makes no sense that in the same subject, and on the same term, you can be lucky with one examiner and unlucky with another — and that the difference can be several grades,« says Morten Kromann.

This is the reason why he decided to investigate all the grades awarded at the Faculty of Law at UCPH from the winter semester 2021 to the summer of 2024.

Striking discrepancies

Through a series of freedom of information requests, he has gained access to data from 734 examiners in the compulsory subjects and analysed the differences in grading. The University Post has seen the material.

These are huge discrepancies that can mean the difference between getting a good grade or failing

Morten Kromann, former law student

The results show striking discrepancies: In several subjects, the average grade varied between examiners by more than four grade points — enough to determine the difference between failing and getting a top grade.

»In Erstatning og kontrakt, the Torts and Contracts course in the summer of 2022, one examiner who assessed 51 students gave an average of 1.57 with no grades above 4 — while the course director’s average was 5.9,« says Morten Kromann, and continues:

»In International Law in the winter of 2022/23, you could be assessed by one examiner who gave an average of 3.9, or by another whose average was 8.76 — they each assessed 52 and 53 assignments respectively. That’s a span of 4.86 in grades, and these are huge discrepancies that can mean the difference between getting a good grade or failing.«

The large fluctuations in grade averages are even more striking when you consider that assignments and students are distributed randomly between examiners.

Even in the most recent exams, there are major variations in average grades depending on the examiner.

In the EU Law written exam in the winter of 2023/24, the average grades ranged from 3.69 to 7.34 between the strictest and the most lenient examiners. Both of them assessed assignments from 32 students.

For students, the differences in grades can, according to Morten Kromann, have serious consequences.

»Student jobs at the big law firms are often applied for in the third semester. They look at specific first-year subjects. So if you happen to get a strict examiner there, you take it with you,« says Morten Kromann.

A strict examiner can not only result in a resit exam, but also cost you a student job, a professional network, and an exchange opportunity.

Data assessed by statistics professor

The University Post asked Helle Sørensen, professor of statistics at the University of Copenhagen, to take a closer look at the data.

Using a so-called linear mixed model, she examined the dataset and separated the variation that stems from students, courses, and examiners.

She finds that while differences between examiners are, in fact, there, they are — in the bigger picture — smaller than the variation between individual students and between courses.

Clearly you want as little variation as possible between examiners when it comes to grades

Helle Sørensen, professor of statistics, University of Copenhagen

According to Helle Sørensen, the spread is estimated at 0.34 grade points between examiners, around 1 between courses, and 3.7 between students.

»This leads me to conclude that the variation between examiners is significantly smaller than the differences between courses — and far smaller than the differences between students, which is, after all, what we are interested in when we hold exams,« she says.

Helle Sørensen emphasises that she has deliberately not looked at individual subjects or specific exams, but only at the overall patterns in the material.

»When you look for extremes, then you will also find extreme things. I find it more important to look for the general pattern,« she explains.

Despite the fact that variation between students and courses statistically outweighs the differences between examiners, the latter is not entirely negligible, according to Helle Sørensen.

»Clearly you want as little variation as possible between examiners when it comes to grades. As a student, you should be able to trust that you are being assessed fairly,« she says.

Faculty aware of the issue

The University Post has tried to secure an interview with Faculty of Law management to get them to respond to the results, and the criticism raised by Morten Kromann. They declined.

Instead, the University Post got written responses from the faculty’s associate dean for education, Liselotte Madsen.

She writes that the faculty already uses lots of resources on monitoring academic grading standards, but that grades will always include a certain an element of discretion.

This is a criticism that we take very seriously

Liselotte Madsen, Associate Dean for Education, Faculty of Law

Assignments and grading guidelines are quality assured by a commission consisting of the course leaders and the external examiners, and after the exam, the examiners meet for a pre-assessment to ensure a uniform benchmark. Experiences are then discussed with teaching staff.

The associate dean stresses, however, that the faculty is attentive to the criticism that has been raised about grading in some subjects.

»This is a criticism that we take very seriously. This is why we will also investigate the issue further in dialogue with the study board and the course leaders at the Faculty of Law,« she writes.

They have also decided that in future, the course leader in each course will receive the average grades per examiner for each exam.

»Should it turn out that there is a structural problem with grading, we are of course interested in solving it. However, I am not in a position to comment on analyses that we have not carried out ourselves, as we have not had the opportunity to verify the calculations,« she writes in her response.

Never completely objective

For Morten Kromann, the conclusion is not that grades can ever be made completely objective, but that the system should be designed to minimise variation as much as possible.

He points to several specific measures that could help: Fewer examiners per subject, closer monitoring of grading patterns, mandatory calibration between examiners, and double marking in borderline cases — for example when the grade falls between 00 and 02, or between 10 and 12.

»It would be relatively easy to introduce systems to monitor if an examiner is consistently at one extreme. This would give more consistent and fairer grades,« says Morten Kromann.

He acknowledges that the variation among examiners is, in the bigger picture, smaller than the variation between students, but he still believes there should be more focus on the extremes.

»The extremes are not just random statistics: They are very specific cases where one examiner can ruin a student’s opportunities. If we want to protect students, we have to focus on the individual extreme assessments and not just the averages. Of course, there will be differences between students. What needs to be ensured is that equal performances are assessed equally,« says Morten Kromann.

He acknowledges that grading can never be an exact science, no matter how many measures are introduced.

»There will always be a degree of uncertainty in assessments, but I think we owe it to the students to minimise chance as much as possible,« he says.

According to him, the problem is not just technical but also cultural: Grades are often treated as an objective and immutable measure of academic ability, even though they to a large extent reflect chance.

»It is an illusion to believe that a grade is an objective truth. As long as we hold on to that notion, nothing will change,« says Morten Kromann.

This article was first written in Danish and published on 25 September 2025. It has been translated into English and post-edited by Mike Young.