There has been much concern about standards in British higher education in the last few years, as the number and percentage of students graduating with good degrees has increased. In 1997, 53 per cent of graduating students were awarded 2:1 or 1st class degree; in 2008 the figure was 61 per cent. How then are standards maintained? There is, of course, a variety of mechanisms, including the external examiner system and a lot of guidance from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) about procedures and good practice. Amongst this guidance--and widely accepted throughout the higher education sector--is the idea of "double marking". There is however a wider literature that advocates double marking and asserts its value in terms of maintenance and consistency of standards. In this article, the authors question some of the assumptions about the value of double marking in the assessment of students. Some academics have raised concerns about how effective it is. Roger White on the website of the Higher Education Academy asserts that the widespread opinion that double marking is the superior way of examining is an irrational prejudice. The authors argue that it is not just in practice that double marking is faulty. They explain the theory that double marking in principle is likely to result in a less accurate mark than the "true" mark. They stress that universities should reconsider their largely unquestioned assumption that double marking is an aid to accuracy and fairness, and that QAA might need to modify its code of practice.