UG Marking Criteria - Y3 MSci Projects and BSc Final Year Projects

Class

Mark

Marking guidelines

First

1) Narrative, rationale and hypotheses are logical and exceptionally well communicated

2) Description of methods and design are well-structured and comprehensive and would allow for replication

3) Analyses use suitable techniques and results are reported clearly, in appropriate detail 

4) Excellent integration of appropriate evidence to support claims

5) Strong evidence of original critical reflection and an analytical approach

Excellent First

100

Assignment reaches an exceptional level of achievement that significantly exceeds the standards described by the above statements

Good First

90

Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements

Solid First

80

Assignment is well described by the above statements

Low First

75

Assignment mostly meets the standards described by the above statements

Upper Second

1) Narrative, rationale and hypotheses are logical and coherent

2) Description of methods and design are comprehensive and would allow for replication

3) Analyses use suitable techniques, but may have minor errors in their reporting of results

4) Good integration of appropriate evidence to support claims

5) Good evidence of original critical reflection and an analytical approach

Good 2.1

68

Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a first class mark

Solid 2.1

65

Assignment is well described by the above statements

Low 2.1

62

Assignment mostly meets the standards described by the above statements

Lower Second

1) Broadly logical and coherent narrative, rationale and hypotheses, but showing signs of structure breaking down

2) Description of methods and design contain key details but miss some important aspects; only partial replication would be possible

3) Analyses use suitable techniques but with some significant errors in their application and/or reporting of results

4) Appropriate evidence used to support claims, but patchy in places

5) Limited evidence of original critical reflection and an analytical approach

Good 2.2

58

Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for an upper second class mark

Solid 2.2

55

Assignment is well described by the above statements

Low 2.2

52

Assignment mostly meets the standards described by the above statements

Third

1) Narrative, rationale and hypotheses suffer from illogical or incoherent passages

2) Description of methods and design miss a number of important aspects; would not allow for replication

3) Analyses use suitable techniques but with some substantial errors in their application and/or reporting of results

4) Some appropriate evidence used to support claims, but missing in several places

5) Weak evidence of original critical reflection or an analytical approach

Good Third

48

Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a second class mark

Solid Third

45

Assignment is well described by the above statements

Low Third

42

Assignment falls below the standards described by the above statements

Fail

1) Minimally logical hypotheses and rationale, and an incoherent narrative

2) Methods and design are poorly described

3) Analyses are omitted or largely inappropriate

4) Material is almost entirely irrelevant to the topic

High Marginal Fail

38

Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a pass mark

Low Marginal Fail

32

Assignment is well described by the above statements

Outright Fail

10

Assignment falls below the standards described by the above statements

Zero Marks

0

1) No psychology-related content.