undergraduate dissertation marking scheme

School of Social and Political Science

Marking descriptors.

• Coursework marking scheme
• Dissertation marking scheme

A1 (90-100%)

An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair in tackling issues, yielding a product that is deemed to be of potentially publishable quality, in terms of scholarship and originality.

A2 (80-89%)

An authoritative answer that provides a fully effective response to the question. It should show a command of the literature and an ability to integrate that literature and go beyond it. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to the conclusion. Sources should be used accurately and concisely to inform the answer but not dominate it. There should be a sense of a critical and committed argument, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to question them. Presentation and the use of English should be commensurate with the quality of the content.

A3 (70-79%)

A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the literature and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions.

B B- (60-63%) B (64-66%) B+ (67-69%)

A very good answer that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question and the sources should be addressed directly and fully. The work of other authors should be presented critically. Effective use should be made of the whole range of the literature. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation. The answer should proceed coherently to a convincing conclusion. The quality of the writing and presentation (especially referencing) should be without major blemish. Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+; a more limited answer will be graded B-.

C C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%)

A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and firmly based in the reading. It may draw upon a restricted range of sources but should not just re-state one particular source. Other authors should be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. The materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-.

D D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%)

A passable answer which understands the question, displays some academic learning and refers to relevant literature. The answer should be intelligible and in general factually accurate, but may well have deficiencies such as restricted use of sources or academic argument, over-reliance on lecture notes, poor expression, and irrelevancies to the question asked. The general impression may be of a rather poor effort, with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the issue. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

An answer with evident weaknesses of understanding but conveying the sense that with a fuller argument or factual basis it might have achieved a pass. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps.

An answer showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and pedestrian use of inadequate sources.

An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with reading or academic concepts.

An answer without any academic merit which usually conveys little sense that the course has been followed or of the basic skills of essay-writing.

A dissertation that fulfils all of the criteria for an ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair and originality in tackling both methodological and substantive issues. These should be seen as yielding a product that is of potentially publishable quality in terms of scholarship, originality and contribution to the field.

An authoritative dissertation that displays a sophisticated grasp of issues raised in the literature and develops an appropriate design and methodology to address a clearly-articulated set of questions stemming from that literature. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to its own independent conclusions. It should also show an ability to be reflexive, pointing to lessons learned from the research and making suggestions where appropriate as to how future studies in the area might benefit from experience gained in the course of the investigation. Referencing, presentation and use of English should be of commensurately high quality.

A dissertation of high intellectual quality, which has clearly-stated aims, displays a good grasp of methodological issues and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. While presenting the data obtained from the research accurately, the discussion should move beyond a mainly descriptive account of the results, to develop its own comments, points and interpretations.

A very good dissertation that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The research question should be clearly stated and an appropriate methodology used to test or answer it, with effective use made of the literature. There should be no significant errors of either fact or interpretation. The presentation and use of the research data should be accurate and the discussion should show a willingness to speculate on their implications for theoretical, empirical or practical developments in the area. Referencing and the quality of the writing should be without major blemish. The answer should cover the question fully and present only relevant material. Within this range a particularly strong dissertation will be graded B+; a more limited one will be graded B-.

A satisfactory dissertation, though showing elements of the routine and predictable. While generally accurate and firmly based in the reading, it will tend to draw on a more restricted set of sources. It will probably also be based on less clearly-stated aims and/or a less coherent methodology. Indeed, it is the grasp and handling of methodological issues that will most likely differentiate between the B and C grades. The data will be presented accurately, if rather descriptively, although there should be no serious weaknesses in their portrayal or interpretation. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger dissertation will be graded C+; a weaker one C-.

A passable dissertation, which displays some familiarity with relevant literature and the issues under investigation. The aims may be poorly articulated and this incoherence will undermine the quality of the research. The work should be intelligible and factually accurate, but will contain deficiencies such as restricted use of sources, poor expression and failure to analyse or discuss the implications of the data in anything more than a thin and descriptive way. The general impression will probably be of a rather poor effort with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for an obviously hastily-executed piece of research which attempted to address a relevant set of questions. Within this range a stronger piece of work will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

A dissertation showing clear lack of understanding of the nature of research, but conveying the sense that with clearer aims and better developed instruments it might have achieved a pass. It might also clearly have been written in a hurry, with some merit, but serious gaps, in what is presented.

Work showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and limited use of inadequate sources. It could also be the mark for a very short answer with some relevant material.

Work falling short of a passable level by some combination of poor methodology, unclear aims, incoherence, factual inaccuracy and lack of familiarity with basic concepts or literature.

A dissertation containing no academic merit or evidence that the author understands the nature of the research enterprise, or made a serious effort to address the topic.

Browser does not support script.

We use cookies on this site. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. Close this message Find out more

• Find your course
• The Principal
• Our experts
• Our history
• Facts & figures
• Art Collections & Picture Gallery
• Exhibitions
• Online shop
• Organisation of the College
• Charitable status
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research degrees
• Scholarships
• Accommodation
• Guide for parents
• Schools & colleges
• Lifelong learning
• Passport Award
• Discover Arts
• Discover Science
• Careers & Employability
• Departments and Schools
• Biological Sciences
• Comparative Literature & Culture
• Computer Science
• Drama,Theatre & Dance
• Earth Sciences
• Electronic Engineering
• European Studies
• Information Security
• Liberal Arts
• Mathematics
• Modern Languages, Literatures & Cultures
• Politics & International Relations
• Professional Studies
• Social Work
• Student life
• Campus & facilities
• Social life
• Royal Holloway and Me
• What our students say
• Student media
• Students' Union
• Active lifestyle & sport
• Volunteering
• Support, health & welfare
• Jobs while you study
• Sustainability
• International
• Why Royal Holloway?
• English language & university preparation
• Study abroad & exchanges
• Immigration & visas
• Your country
• Fees & scholarships
• After applying
• Support for international students
• Information for agents
• Virtual Open Day
• Current research
• Doctoral School
• Impact case studies
• Research support
• Funding opportunities
• Departments & Groups
• Pure support
• Commercialisation seed funds
• Research data management
• For business
• The Institute for Cyber Security Innovation
• Conferences & hospitality
• Consultancy
• Enterprise centre / incubation
• Licensing / commercialisation
• Research & business
• Recruiting our students
• Proof of award
• Get involved
• Benefits & services
• Events & reunions
• Higher magazine
• Why support the College?
• Our priorities
• A gift in your will
• American Foundation
• Tax efficient giving

Dissertation - Marking Criteria

The text below is an extract from the MSc handbook for students

Each dissertation is independently marked by two examiners; one of these is normally the supervisor. An external examiner moderates the assessment. The examiners may conduct an oral examination if they wish to check the depth of the student's understanding and to ensure that the dissertation is the student's own work. Students must obtain a pass grade on the dissertation to pass the MSc degree. The examiners give up to 100 points where the points translate to the following categories:

85 − 100:   An exceptionally high level of understanding and outstanding  research potential.

70 − 84.99:   Very high competence and excellent research potential.

60 − 69.99:   Evidence of some creativity and independence of thought.

50 − 59.99:   Sound understanding of the literature, but lack of accuracy or originality.

0 − 49.99:   Insufficient or no understanding of the topic, poor quality of work.  

The points are given according to the following guidelines:

Knowledge of subject (25)

21 − 25:   Deep understanding and near-comprehensive knowledge.

18 − 20:   Deep understanding.

15 − 17:   Very good understanding.

12 − 14:   Sound knowledge of relevant information.

10 − 11:   Basic understanding of the main issues.

0 − 9:   Little or no understanding of the main issues.

Organisation of material (25)

21 − 25:   Of publishable quality.

18 − 20:   Arguments clearly constructed; material very well-organised.

15 − 17:   Well-organised; aims met with no significant errors or omissions.

12 − 14:   Coherent and competent organisation.

10 − 11:   Lack of clarity in written presentation or aims only partially met.

6 − 9:   Major flaws in arguments; aims of project not met.

0 − 5:   Arguments are missing/deficient. Disorganised or fragmentary.

Originality, interpretation and analysis   (20)

17 − 20:   Significant originality in the interpretation and/or analysis;  project aims challenging.

14 − 16:   Some originality; evidence of excellent analytical and problem- solving skills.

12 − 13:   Good attempt to interpret and analyse existing literature.

10 − 11:   Minor flaws in interpretation/analysis of existing literature.

5 − 9:   Poor interpretation/analysis or project aims too simple.

0 − 4: Little or no interpretation or analysis; project aims trivial.

Evidence of reading (10)

8 − 10:   Independent reading including research papers.

6 − 7:    Good use of outside reading.

4 − 5:    Some evidence of outside reading.

0 − 3:    Little or no evidence of outside reading.  

Bibliography and referencing   (10)

9 − 10:   Of publishable quality.

7 − 8:    Good referencing and bibliography.

5 − 6:     Either poor bibliography or poor referencing.

3 − 4:    Poor bibliography and little or no referencing.

0 − 2:    No bibliography and little or no referencing.

Style, spelling, punctuation and grammar (10)

9 − 10:   Incisive and fluent, no errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

7 − 8:    Very minor errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

4 − 6:    Some errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

0 − 3:    Many errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

Find your Mathematics course

• Mathematical Studies BSc
• Mathematics BSc
• Mathematics MSci
• Mathematics and Management BSc
• Mathematics and Music BA
• Mathematics and Physics BSc
• Mathematics and Physics MSci
• Mathematics with French BSc
• Mathematics with German BSc
• Mathematics with Italian BSc
• Mathematics with Management BSc
• Mathematics with Philosophy BSc
• Mathematics with Spanish BSc
• Mathematics with Statistics BSc
• Computer Science and Mathematics BSc
• Economics and Mathematics BSc
• Economics and Mathematics with a Year in Business BSc
• Finance and Mathematics BSc
• Finance and Mathematics with a Year in Business BSc
• Management with Mathematics BSc
• Modern Languages with Mathematics BA
• Mathematics for Applications MSc
• Mathematics of Cryptography and Communications MSc
• settings Undergraduate Postgraduate taught Postgraduate research Search Mathematics All departments View all undergraduate courses for 2018 View all undergraduate courses for 2019 View all postgraduate courses for 2018
• Mobile site view
• Desktop site view
• Media enquiries
• Modern Slavery Act
• IT Services
• Social media
• CampusAnywhere
• Terms and conditions

Comment on this page

Did you find the information you were looking for? Is there a broken link or content that needs updating? Let us know so we can improve the page.

Note: If you need further information or have a question that cannot be satisfied by this page, please call our switchboard on +44 (0)1784 434455.

This window will close when you submit your comment.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Student blogs and videos
• Why Cambridge
• Qualifications directory
• How to apply
• Fees and funding
• Frequently asked questions
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Visiting the University
• Term dates and calendars
• Video and audio
• Find an expert
• Publications
• International Cambridge
• Public engagement
• Giving to Cambridge
• For current students
• For business
• Colleges & departments
• Libraries & facilities
• Museums & collections
• Email & phone search
• Current Students

Current undergraduates

• Marking Criteria
• Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages and Linguistics
• About overview
• Governance of the Faculty overview
• Governance at MML
• Faculty Board overview
• Board Overview
• Membership and Contacts
• Student Engagement
• Staff-Student Liaison Committee overview
• Committee Overview
• News & Events
• Academic Visitors
• Public Engagement
• IT Services
• The University Library
• Language Centre
• Research Facilities
• MMLL privacy policy
• Health and Safety at MMLL
• Subjects overview
• Modern Greek
• Spanish and Portuguese
• Slavonic Studies overview
• Slavonic Studies virtual event for Years 11 & 12
• Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
• Undergraduates overview
• The Courses: Key Facts overview
• Course costs
• The courses we offer
• The MML Course overview
• MML: The First Year
• MML: The Second Year
• MML: The Year Abroad
• MML: The Fourth Year
• The Linguistics Course
• The History and Modern Languages Course overview
• Course structure overview
• How We Teach
• How You Learn
• Resources for teachers and supporters
• Careers and Employment
• Alumni testimonials overview
• Matthew Thompson
• Rosie Sargeant
• Mark Austin
• Esther Wilkinson
• Katherine Powlesland
• Gillian McFarland
• Katya Andrusz
• Frequently asked questions overview
• Choosing your course
• Applications
• Resources and reading lists for prospective students
• Did you know...?
• Student Perspectives overview
• Alfie Vaughan
• Romany Whittall
• Postgraduates
• Offer Holders overview
• French overview
• Summer Preparation
• German overview
• Beginners Course overview
• Post A-Level Course overview
• Italian and Greek overview
• Portuguese overview
• Spanish overview
• History & Modern Languages Tripos
• From Our Students
• Current undergraduates overview
• Year Abroad overview
• Thinking about your Year Abroad overview
• Studying overview
• Finance overview
• Turing Scheme
• Safety and Insurance
• Year Abroad FAQs
• Year Abroad Project FAQs
• Modern and Medieval Languages Tripos overview
• MML Part IA List of Papers
• Part I Oral Examination A and B
• MML Part IB List of Papers
• MML IB Assessment by Long Essay
• The Year Abroad Project
• MML Part II List of Papers overview
• MML Part II List of Borrowed Papers
• CS5: The Body
• CS6: European Film
• Oral C Examination
• MML Part II Optional Dissertation
• MML with Classics
• Linguistics within the Modern and Medieval Languages Tripos
• Linguistics Tripos overview
• Linguistics Tripos - List of Papers
• Transferable Skills
• History and Modern Languages Tripos
• Supervision Guidelines
• Teaching Provision
• Examinations Data Retention Policy (PDF)
• Learning Resources
• Additional Course Costs
• Faculty guidance on plagiarism
• Translation Toolkit overview
• 1. Translation as a Process
• 2. Translation as a Product
• 3. Equivalence and Translation Loss
• Email etiquette at MMLL
• Overall Degree Classification
• Current postgraduates
• Research in MMLL overview
• Research by Section overview
• Italian overview
• CIRN Home overview
• CIRN Events overview
• CIRN Annual Lecture 2015
• CIRN Annual Lecture 2016
• CIRN Annual Lecture 2017
• CIRN Annual Lecture 2018
• CIRN Annual Lecture 2019
• CIRN Annual Lecture 2019-20
• CIRN Annual Symposium 2015
• CIRN Annual Symposium 2016
• CIRN Annual Symposium 2017
• CIRN Annual Symposium 2018
• CIRN Annual Symposium 2019
• CIRN News and Events archive
• Slavonic Studies
• Research by Language overview
• Research by Period overview
• Medieval and Pre-Modern
• Early Modern
• Eighteenth Century
• Nineteenth Century
• 1900 - 1945
• 1945 - present
• Research by Thematic Field overview
• Literature, Visual Culture and the Arts overview
• Colonial, Postcolonial and Decolonial Studies
• Contemporary Culture and Society
• Drama, Music and Performance
• Environmental Criticism and Posthumanism
• Film and Visual Culture
• Gender, Feminism and Queer Studies
• Intellectual and Cultural History
• Literary Theory, Philosophy and Political Thought
• Material Culture and History of the Book
• Poetry, Rhetoric and Poetics
• Language and Linguistics overview
• Comparative Syntax
• Computational Linguistics
• Dialectology
• Experimental Phonetics and Phonology
• Historical Linguistics
• Language Acquisition
• Language Change
• Language Contact
• Multilingualism
• Psycholinguistics
• Semantics, Pragmatics and Philosophy
• Translation Theory and Practice
• Funded Projects
• Apply for Research Funding overview
• Research Strategy Committee
• Leverhulme Early Career Fellowships
• British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowships
• Management of Ongoing Grants
• Funding Opportunities
• Centres overview
• Cambridge Film and Screen
• Cambridge Italian Research Network (CIRN)
• Centre of Latin American Studies (CLAS)
• Cambridge Language Sciences
• Cambridge Endangered Languages and Cultures Group (CELC) overview
• Seminar Series
• Past conferences
• Cambridge Centre for Greek Studies
• Centre for the Study of Global Human Movement
• Equality and Diversity overview
• EDI Committee
• Accessibility Statement
• Accessible Materials
• Recording Lectures
• Athena SWAN
• Mentoring and Career Development
• Parents and Carers
• EDI Related Links
• Harassment and Discrimination
• Outreach overview
• Resources overview
• Open Day Resources for Prospective Students
• CCARL A-level Resources overview
• Why Not Languages? resources overview
• Student Q&A
• Events for Students overview
• Events for Teachers overview
• Diversity in French and Francophone Studies: A CPD workshop series for teachers of French
• Diversity in German Studies - CPD Workshop series aimed at secondary teachers of German
• Workshop for Spanish Teachers
• Workshop for Teachers of German: Diversity in German Culture
• Access and Widening Participation
• Year Abroad
• Modern and Medieval Languages Tripos

Linguistics Tripos

• Translation Toolkit

In the following marking criteria higher grades should demonstrate not only the qualities specified for that class but also all the qualities expected of lower grades.

• HML Optional Dissertation
• Scheduled Papers
• Part IIB Dissertation
• Translation into English (Paper A2)
• Translation into English (Papers B2, C1)
• Translation into the Foreign Language Part IB (Paper B3)
• Language through the media (Paper MD)
• Examination by Long Essay
• Translation into the Foreign Language Part II (Paper C1)
• Text and Culture (Paper C2)
• Year Abroad Project - Dissertation
• Year Abroad Project - Translation Project
• Year Abroad Project - Linguistics Project
• Part II Optional Dissertation
• Oral A (Part IA)
• Oral B (Part IA and Part IB)
• Oral C (Part II)
• Part IA/IB Use of the Language (Paper B1)
• Part IA Use of the Language (Paper A1,  ab initio )

Search form

Related links.

• Student Support
• Wellbeing at Cambridge
• Year Abroad FAQ
• Polyglossia Magazine
• The Cambridge Language Collective
• Information for current undergraduates
• Visiting and Erasmus Students

Keep in touch

• University of Cambridge Privacy Policy
• Student complaints and Examination Reviews

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• University A-Z
• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Terms and conditions
• Undergraduate
• Spotlight on...
• About research at Cambridge

Academic Manual

• 7. Classification

Section 7: Classification

Published for 2023-24

7.1 Overarching Principles

7.2 calculating classifications, 7.2.1 averages and rounding, 7.2.2 classification year mean (ug programmes only), 7.2.3 weighting of reassessment and deferral marks , 7.2.4 credit awarded via the recognition of prior learning (rpl) , 7.2.5 pass / fail degrees , 7.2.6 study abroad and placements  , 7.2.7 academic partnerships, 7.3 pre-honours classification scheme , 7.4    honours degree classification scheme, 7.4.1 general principles , 7.4.2 honours classification scheme a , 7.4.3 honours classification scheme b , 7.4.4 honours classification scheme c , 7.4.5 determination of honours classifications , 7.5 graduate classification scheme , 7.6 taught postgraduate classification scheme , 7.7 research masters (mres) classification scheme , 7.8 non-modular programmes  , 7.8.1 ba (hons) english , 7.8.2 ba (hons) fine art , 7.8.3 bfa (hons) fine art , 7.8.4 mbbs (bachelor of medicine, bachelor of surgery), 7.8.5 ma fine art , 7.8.6 mfa fine art in the slade school of fine art, advice for students.

Further information and advice for students about assessment is available on the  Examinations & Awards webpages .

Recent Changes

A guide to changes to the regulations are available from the  Recent Changes  page.

King's College London

Marking, college framework, document profile.

• College Marking Framework

The College Marking Framework includes:

• Marking Models
• College Marking Schemes
• College Marking Criteria

The framework is an important reference point for setting and maintaining academic standards across the College. It provides guidance for all assessment practices and promotes consistency across taught programmes with the aim of enhancing the student experience of assessment. This College Marking Framework was endorsed by the Academic Standards Subcommittee (ASSC) and approved by College Education Committee (CEC) in November 2021. The framework was noted for information by Academic Board in December 2021. It was piloted in some faculties in 2022-23 and is the College Marking Framework for all faculties from September 2023.

The College Marking Criteria also provides a frame for the setting of learning outcomes and supports faculties and assessment sub-boards in refining their faculty, discipline or assessment-specific marking criteria.

Step-Marking Guidance for Faculties

• Step-Marking Guidance for Faculties, 2023-24
• Step-Marking Guidance for Students

Previous Framework (before 2023/24)

The previous College Marking Framework and the Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Marking Criteria are available here:

• Undergraduate Marking Criteria
• Taught Postgraduate Marking Criteria

• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

•   Student Services Online
• Type to search Student Services Online

Marking & award classifications at King's

• College Marking Framework
• Generic Marking Criteria: Undergraduate
• Generic Marking Criteria: Taught Postgraduate
• King's Feedback Policy

Cookies on our website

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use our site. And we'd like to serve you some cookies set by other services to show you relevant content.

• Accessibility
• Staff search
• External website
• Schools & services
• Sussex Direct
• Professional services
• Schools and services
• Engineering and Informatics
• Student handbook
• Informatics
• MSc dissertations and projects

Marking criteria MSc ACS

• Back to previous menu
• MSc project
• Dissertation content
• Ethical guidelines
• Dissertation timetable
• Marking criteria MSc AIAS
• Marking criteria MSc CDM
• Marking criteria MSc MIT

School of Engineering and Informatics (for staff and students)

Dissertation marking criteria

Dissertations should demonstrate a mix of skills at masters level. Depending on the project, different skills will have greater weighting in the marking, but no project will be carried by a single one. The criteria for evaluation include:

• application of or extension of MSc course skills, ideally beyond those taught in that course, or skills beyond those that might reasonably be expected of a computer science undergraduate.
• engagement with the literature, including appropriate selection of papers and analysis of concepts.A dissertation which applies concepts from one field in another area or combines concepts from two fields may attract greater weighting for the literature aspect.
• theoretical analysis and development of concepts.
• quality of programming, proofs and other practical development work.  Organisation, clarity, efficiency, application of advanced methods and novelty are the focus. A large volume of code is not, by itself, sufficient.
• quality of evaluation, including choice of methods, controls and conditions; rigour of their application, and analysis of data.
• novelty is not an absolute requirement of an MSc dissertation. However, the work undertaken should engage with recent developments in computer science. Where there is novelty, for instance modification of algorithms or a new approach to a proof, this shall be acknowledged in the marking.
• good project management will be reflected in the outcomes of the dissertation. However, examiners may wish to note appropriate selection of tools and methods and suitable management of time and risk, particularly where engaging with very new tools or making novel contributions.

General professional standards will be expected:

• in matters of punctuation, vocabulary choice, standard English grammar, and the conventions of academic discourse (including reference to sources).
• in presentation of code (for programming projects): Code for programming projects should be submitted as an appendix to the main report.
• in formal aspects of presentation (word-processing/typing, printing).

Guidelines to students and markers on standards expected at each level

70% - 100%  -  Excellent Shows very good understanding supported by evidence that the student has gone beyond what was taught by extra study, programming, or creative thought. Work at the top end of this range is of exceptional quality. Write-up: well-structured, correct references, critical discussion of existing relevant work, neatly presented, interesting and clearly expressed, thorough disinterested critique of what is good and bad about the approach taken, and proposals about how the project work could be developed in the future. Literature: engagement with current research, including appropriate analysis, comparison, critique and selection and precis of key ideas relating to the student's work.   Program: code that executes efficiently, incorporates sophisticated programming features, is non-redundant, well-structured, well commented and elegant, addresses the problem effectively for a non-trivial application. Theoretical analysis: appropriate application of techniques, including classification, proof, complexity analysis etc., to a non-trivial problem. Evaluation: a substantial evaluation, through appropriate interpretation of analysis, simulation, deployment, functional and non-functional testing, etc., coupled with excellent interpretation and presentation of results.  In more experimental projects results will be repeatable and contain comparison with alternative techniques and/or significant exploration of the parameters of the code/problem.

60% - 69%  -  Good Very competent in all respects, substantially correct and complete knowledge but not going beyond what was taught. Literature: engagement with literature, including critique of ideas, well-related to the rest of the project.  Possibly not engaging beyond further reading from course(s). Program: code that executes, incorporates some complexity, is well-designed and presented and addresses a reasonably non-trivial problem related to the literature. Theoretical analysis: a clear, if not particularly sophisticated, analysis of the problem. Evaluation: a good application of appropriate techniques leading to a clear result.

55% - 59%  -  Satisfactory Competent in most respects.  Minor gaps in knowledge but reasonable understanding of fundamental concepts. Literature: a presentation of ideas from the literature, given some structure and basic analysis and related to the rest of the project. Program: code that executes, and addresses a simple problem. Theoretical analysis: a competent analysis of at least the most significant concepts in the work. Evaluation: evidence of appropriate testing beyond function testing of code.

50% - 54%  -  Borderline Significant gaps in knowledge but some understanding of funamental concepts.  Typically this project will be a marginal development or integration of course or textbook ideas, with some evaluation or analysis.

30% - 49%  -  Fail Inadequate knowledge of the subject.  Work is seriously flawed, displaying major lack of understanding, irrelevance or incoherence.  Code, analysis and evaluation that are not coherent in terms of the problem being addressed or the methods to be employed in doing this.

Poster marking criteria

• Engagement with the literature, showing understanding of prior work to be applied and/or knowledge gap that the project will address. This might require a combination of tool / evaluation method selection and survey of related work.
• Description of the planned system. A passable poster will have a clear statement of goals. The level of sophistication in the design (or other technical progress to date) is of interest, which might involve technical complexity in the work or the techniques being proposed to evaluate the work.
• Quality of the poster design - clear and informative in a poster setting, without being cluttered.
• Ability of the student to answer questions and justify claims / choices made verbally.

Note that novelty is not an absolute requirement of an MSc dissertation.  However, the work undertaken should engage with recent developments in computer science. Where there is novelty, for instance modification of algorithms or a new approach to a proof, this shall be acknowledged in the marking.

Guidelines to students and markers on standards expected at each level:

85-100%  -  Excellent All of: Shows very good understanding supported by evidence that the student has gone beyond what was taught by extra study, programming, or creative thought. Work at the top end of this range is of exceptional quality. A clear statement of goals, set in context of a problem and prior work. Full discussion of existing relevant work, as comparisons, basis or tools. Neatly presented, with clear and polished graphics and clear but brief text. A design which addresses the problem effectively for a non-trivial application; for theoretical analysis: appropriate application of techniques, including classification, proof, complexity analysis etc., to a non-trivial problem. Evaluation plans: appropriate selection of techniques and identification of suitable data to support the evaluation of success of the goals. Possibly includes early results. Verbal discussion will be able to go beyond the poster content, justifying ideas - although allowing for there to be flaws or limitations which are acceptable for MSc level or stage in project. 70% - 84%  -  Very good As for excellent, but competent rather than top class in some respect. 60% - 69%  -  Good Very competent in all respects, substantially correct and complete knowledge but not going beyond what was taught. Literature, design, and/or evaluation plans lacking in sophistication - not really going beyond course material or lacking in complexity.Generally well presented, without requiring the most polished graphics. 55% - 59%  -  Satisfactory Competent in most respects. Minor gaps in knowledge but reasonable understanding of fundamental concepts. Literature, design, and/or evaluation plans are coherent but addressing a simple idea. Possibly lacking in clarity in the presentation or verbal discussion. 50% - 54%  -  Borderline Significant gaps in knowledge but some understanding of funamental concepts.  Typically this project will be a marginal development or integration of course or textbook ideas, with some evaluation or analysis. Presentation may be weak, e.g. poor English or incomplete figures; discussion may reveal weakness in comprehension. 0% - 49%  -  Fail Inadequate knowledge of the subject. Work is seriously flawed, displaying major lack of understanding, irrelevance or incoherence.

School Office: School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Chichester 1 Room 002, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QJ [email protected] T 01273 (67) 8195 School Office opening hours: School Office open Monday – Friday 09:00-15:00, phone lines open Monday-Friday 09:00-17:00 School Office location [PDF 1.74MB]

Copyright © 2024, University of Sussex

We use cookies on reading.ac.uk to improve your experience, monitor site performance and tailor content to you.

Read our cookie policy to find out how to manage your cookie settings.

This site may not work correctly on Internet Explorer. We recommend switching to a different browser for a better experience.

Assessment Handbook

The Assessment Handbook presents the University's assessment policies and procedures topic-by-topic, following the broad sequence of the assessment process. It brings together policies and procedures previously contained in the: Code of Practice on the Assessment of Taught Programmes; University-wide Framework for Classification and Progression for First Degrees; Marking Criteria and Classification Framework for Taught Postgraduate Programmes; Examination and Assessment Procedures Handbook, and a sub-set of the Governing Regulations. These documents have now been discontinued. It should be noted that the Code of Practice on External Examining remains as a separate document.

Please note that the introduction of the Assessment Handbook constitutes a restructuring and consolidation of policies, which remain unchanged in substance except for a few places where anomalies were identified or a policy needed to be updated in the light of changing context. None of the minor changes is to the detriment of students. A brief summary of the changes is available here Summary for UBTL Assessment Handbook

The Assessment Handbook was approved by the University Board for Teaching and Learning on 31 October 2017 and takes effect immediately.

Section 1: Ordinance and Governing Principles

Section 2: Key Dates 

Section 3: Delegations within Schools and Examination Representatives

Section 4: Nomination and Appointment of Internal and External Examiners

Section 5: Assessment Regimes

Section 6: Conduct of Assessment: Examinations and Coursework (including Annex 1: Examination question papers and Annex 2: Online submission protocols)

• Annex 2: Online Submission Protocols

Section 7: Examination and Assessment Arrangements for Students with Specific needs

• 7a: Retrospective allowance in assessed work for students diagnosed with a disability during their programme of study

Section 8: Exceptional Circumstances Policy

• 8a: Exceptional Circumstances: Post-Experience Programmes (HBS)

Section 9: Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct

• Annex 1: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools, Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct

Section 10: Marking (including Annex 1: University marking criteria for Level 4-6 and Annex 2: University marking criteria framework at Level 7)

• Memo on anonymous marking and moderation: guidance on practical and appropriate consideration (PDF-131KB)

Section 11: Verification and Submission of Marks

Section 12: Providing Feedback to Students on their Performance

Section 13: Moderation with annexes

Section 14: Retention of Exam Scripts, Coursework and In-Class Tests

Section 15: Progression

• For 2023/24 (and onwards) entrants only - Section 15: Progression

Section 16: Awards

Section 17: Awards: Bachelor's (including Annex 1: Programmes for which exceptional arrangements have been approved by Senate)

• For 2022/23 (and onwards) entrants only - Section 17: Awards: Bachelor's (including Annex 1: Programme for which exceptional arrangement have been approved by Senate)

Section 18: Awards: Integrated Masters

Section 19: Awards: Postgraduate Master's, Postgraduate Diploma, Postgraduate Certificate

Section 20: Awards: Certificate of Higher Education

Section 21: Awards: Diploma of Higher Education

Section 22: Awards: Foundation Degrees

• For 2022/23 (and onwards) entrants only -  Section 22: Awards: Foundation Degrees

Section 23: Awards: Ordinary Bachelor's Degree

• For 2022/23 (and onwards entrants only -  Section 23: Awards: Ordinary Degrees

Section 24: Awards: Graduate Diploma, Graduate Certificate

Section 25: Awards: Professional Graduate Certificate in Education [Please refer to the programme specifications for the PGCE Primary, PGCE Secondary and PGCE School Direct Primary]

Section 26: Examiners' Meetings  

Section 27: Recording, Documentation and Publication of Assessment Decisions

Section 28: Re-assessment (These provisions apply to the Finalists cohorts in 2021/22 and onwards)

• Section 28: Re-assessment (These provisions apply to the Finalist cohorts in 2020/21 and before)

Section 29: Appeals for the Review of Results and for the Review of Marks

Section 30: Visiting Students

Section 31: Quality Management and Enhancement

Contact us:

• Email: [email protected]
• Tel: 0118 378 7097

• Study and research support
• Academic skills

Dissertations

The final chapter.

The Final Chapter resource contains lots of useful information for undergraduate and taught postgraduate students working on a research project or dissertation.

Go to the Final Chapter

It covers choosing your topic, doing a literature review, structuring your work and critical thinking. You can also watch videos of staff and students from the University of Leeds sharing their top tips for success. We recommend dipping in and out of the Final Chapter, rather than working through it all in one go.

Thoughout the Final Chapter you will see examples of previous student dissertations to show best practice. The full dissertations on our dissertation examples pages .

The specific requirements for research projects will differ between disciplines. Always follow the guidelines that you have been given by your department, and check with your supervisor if you are unsure of your departmental guidance.

You can find out how to conduct ethical research when working with people at university by studying the FutureLearn course ‘ Introduction to Research Ethics: Working with People ’.   

All To Know About An Undergraduate Dissertation Marking Criteria

A dissertation is a common task that all final year students receive. It is a very important assignment where in the school/college provides the students the option of self-learning. This where the students are given the option of choosing their own area of interest and research on a self-declared question. That is a question that addresses a valid cause or being with respect to the area of interest. The students are expected to develop a sense of responsibility in this process of knowledge procurement. The main purpose of a dissertation is to put in a well-documented format of all the steps undertaken by the student-the research, the finding, observations, comparisons, results and the interpretation made. A custom dissertation consists of the following important parts like the title page, abstract, acknowledgement, a list of contents in the paper, a list of tables as well as a list of figures, an index of all the chapters being discussed, references made, appendices and presentation requirements like top margins, page numbers and others as such.

Important Criteria To Evaluate The Thesis

The four most important criteria upon which a thesis is evaluated are, first, the depth of research done throughout, second, the quality of the discussion being stated in the report, thirdly, the amount of knowledge exhibited and lastly, the manner of presentation(including organization of the whole process and formatting). The depth of research is a predominant factor in preparing a paper. The literature research done, the foundation of your paper is judged here. Whether or not you have undertaken the amount of research need of you with respect to the topic of the paper, is the deciding factor here. But them irrelevant research is also not advised. The quality of discussion is to do with the observation, comparisons made with following subsequent arguments and analysis. Remember never to stray away from the main scope of the paper. Pick out the major topics in the field, discuss them and draw parallels between one or two issues of the same kind. This gives an image of knowing more than what you do.

Next is the range of knowledge you manage to exhibit through your paper. Remember to justify the points and cross reference it. Never make baseless assumptions. Make real life references, state facts and if possible real life implementation of the topic.

Last is the presentation. Here make sure your idea flows freely and continuously. Ensure that anyone who reads your report can understand clearly what you are trying to say.

Latest Posts

• Finding sample proposal objectives
• Dissertation topics in finance

Structuring

• Literature review tips
• Proposal research plan tips
• Help with proposals

• Married Couple Arrested For Duping People On Pretext Of Providing Jobs
• France Declares State Of Emergency In New Caledonia As Protests Rage
• Slovakian PM Injured In Assassination Attempt: Who Is 71-Year-Old Shooter?
• Delhi Property Dealer Arrested For Raping Woman: Cops
• Putin Arrives In China Seeking Greater Support For War Effort
• Change Font Size A A
• Change Language हिंदी | Hindi বাঙালি | Bengali தமிழ் | Tamil
• Focus on Story
• Dark Theme Light Theme

CUET UG 2024: Check Marking Scheme For Undergraduate Entrance Exam

Nearly 13.48 lakh candidates across 380 cities, including 26 cities outside india will appear in the entrance test to be held from may 15 to 24..

The National Testing Agency (NTA) will conduct the Common University Entrance Test, Undergraduate (CUET UG 2024) from May 15 to 24. This time the exam will be held in hybrid mode, comprising both Computer-Based Test (CBT) and Pen and Paper modes. Nearly 13.48 lakh candidates across 380 cities, including 26 cities outside India will appear in the entrance test. The results for the CUET UG will be announced on June  30, 2024.

Normalisation of marks

Before the announcement of the results for CUET UG, officials first use the Equi-percentile method for normalisation of scores. The scores are normalised to maintain equality in the difficulty level of question papers for the undergraduate entrance exam.  As per the official notification by NTA, "Since the question papers for any subject in different shifts are different and it is quite possible that despite all the best possible efforts of maintaining equivalence among various question papers, the difficulty level of these question papers administered in different sessions may not be the same or similar. Some of the candidates might have ended up attempting a relatively tougher set of questions when compared to other sets. The candidates who attempted the comparatively tougher examination are likely to get lower marks as compared to those who attempted the easier one; the scores of the students across shifts are not directly comparable. There is a need for normalizing the marks across shifts to make them amenable to such comparisons." The normaisation of scores is done separately for each subject for which the examination is held in multiple shifts. For each subject for which the examination is held in multiple shifts, the raw score for each candidate appearing for the subject will be converted into NTA Score (Percentile Score and Normalized Score). 

Marking scheme of the CUET UG 

For Multiple Choice Questions: To answer a question, the candidates need to choose one option corresponding to the correct answer or the most appropriate answer. However, if any anomaly or discrepancy is found after the process of challenges of the key verification, it will be addressed in the following manner:

• -Five marks will be awarded for every correct answer or the most appropriate answer.
• -Any incorrect option marked will be given minus one mark
• -Unanswered/Marked for Review will be given no mark
• -If more than one option is found to be correct then five marks will be awarded to only those who have marked any of the correct options.
• -If all options are found to be correct then five marks will be awarded to all those who have attempted the question.
• -If none of the options is found correct, or a question is found to be wrong, or a question is dropped, then all candidates who have attempted the dropped question will be given five marks marks.

India Elections | Read Latest News on Lok Sabha Elections 2024 Live on NDTV.com . Get Election Schedule , information on candidates, in-depth ground reports and more - #ElectionsWithNDTV

• Notifications
• Web Stories
• TV Schedule
• Big Bonus REGISTER NOW
• मध्य प्रदेश