The issue of anonymous marking has sometimes been contentious at third level. By its nature, the relationship between lecturers and students is complex, both more distant than at second level, due to the size of classes, but also more intimate, because of the use of tutorials and the emphasis on individual communication whenever necessary or possible.

This relationship has both advantages and disadvantages for both sides. On the plus side, it allows lecturers to form impressions of students which are based on more than simply exam performances or essay results, and it permits students to present their cases in an informal, non-exam-based environment. The disadvantage of the close rapport is that, when exams come around, lecturers may be open to allegations of favouritism or victimisation, while students may feel uncomfortable confronting a lecturer who will be grading them at the end of the year. In a recent referendum in UCD, 82 per cent of the 3,700 students who voted were in favour of introducing anonymous marking in the university. An earlier students' union survey of staff, about half of whom responded, found that 67 per cent supported the proposal.

Earlier this month, UCD students' union made an oral submission to the academic council of the university. "It went okay," says Liam Dockery, education officer with the union. "There was a lot of support but we also got a bit of flak." The proposal has been referred back to individual faculties by the academic council, but the union hopes the comprehensive referendum support for anonymous marking may give the issue new urgency.

"What we're saying is that students have to have confidence in the system of exams they are doing," Dockery says. "For example, if a class or students make a complaint about a lecturer, the students don't feel confident signing their names to anything because their names will also be on the exam scripts." He does not mean to imply, Dockery says, that the absence of anonymity leaves such students open to biased treatment, but he does believe anonymity would make students more comfortable with the system and would also protect lecturers from allegations of favouritism or abuse of position.

"It removes any hint of suspicion from lecturers themselves," Dockery says. According to Dr Tony Scott, head of public affairs in UCD, the discussion at academic council, which now has responsibility for all exams under the Universities Act 1997, was "very lively" but there are potential difficulties arising from an anonymous system.

"The medical faculty made a very interesting point," he says. "How can you do your clinicals if you're going to be anonymous? Also, if you're doing continuous assessments and practicals in science, how can you be anonymous?"

A lecturer's knowledge of a student can work to the student's advantage, Scott says. "It can be of value and goes to the benefit of the student. At final degree level, when the department sits in final judgement on students, there will be discussions about each student." Such discussions allow lecturers to assess if a student has underperformed compared to previous performances and to seek a possible explanation for it - which could ultimately benefit the student, he says.

"If they are absolute blank numbers, that can't happen. There are pros and there are cons to it."