Guidelines for marking a précis
Class | Mark | Marking guidelines |
First |
| An excellent précis: a complete and full summary of the central theme, a well-written and coherent piece, not formulaic. It is thoughtful, engaging, concise and clear, and carefully tailored for the audience. Shows excellent understanding of the topic, an ability to extract the core argument/issues, and communicates these with flair. |
Excellent First | 100 | A model précis paper. An exceptional structure and coherent style of writing, which is underpinned by an overarching theme. Gives a complete summary of the main ideas which is reliable, concise and clear. The writing style is entirely appropriate for the target audience, and has flair. Could be published as it is (for example, as a scientific abstract, or short article in popular science magazine – depending on assignment). |
Good First | 90 | A full, well-organised and coherent précis. Highly concise, clear and readable, and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic. The writing style is appropriate for the target audience, and shows flair. |
Solid First | 80 | A well-organised, clear and full précis. Concise, reliable and readable. Demonstrates clear knowledge of the salient themes, and is aimed at the target audience effectively, showing flair in the writing style. |
Low First | 75 | Well-organised and clear précis, perhaps missing some relevant (but not critical) material. Shows some flair in presentation of content and style of writing. The writing style is largely appropriate for the target audience, but there may be minor stylistic issues. |
Upper Second |
| Comprehensive, well-organised and accurate précis which avoids irrelevancies and repetition. Evidence both of having understood the issues and of being able to present them effectively. The content is communicated in a way that is largely appropriate to the audience. |
Good 2.1 | 68 | Well organised account of main issues, lacking the conciseness, clarity, reliability and/or readability (given the target audience) that would qualify for a distinction. A clear understanding of the main themes, which is presented in a way that is largely appropriate to the audience. |
Solid 2.1 | 65 | Well organised account of the main issues, lacking extra flair. Relatively concise, clear and readable. Evidence that the target audience has been taken into account. |
Low 2.1 | 62 | Relatively full account of the main theme. Some minor errors or omissions. Some evidence that it has been aimed at the target audience though the writing style may be inappropriate in places. |
Lower Second |
| An adequate answer that is mostly accurate and shows evidence of understanding the subject matter but there may be some errors or omissions, and/or weaknesses in presentation, including poorer organisation and/or a writing style that is not consistently well-suited to the target audience. |
Good 2.2 | 58 | Reasonable précis but introduces irrelevant material or fails to convey a few key ideas in an appropriate way. There are likely to be some issues with brevity, clarity, coherence, organization, and/or readability. |
Solid 2.2 | 55 | An adequate précis but with errors/irrelevancies, and weaknesses in brevity, clarity, coherence, organization, or readability e.g., disjointed sentences. |
Low 2.2 | 52 | A précis that reaches MSc standard, but with notable errors/irrelevancies, and clear deficiencies in terms of brevity, clarity, coherence, organization, reliability and/or readability. |
Third |
| Sparse information, including errors, omissions, and/or writing that is inappropriate for the target audience. Readability is compromised by poor presentation. |
Good Third | 48 | Incomplete knowledge of topic. Sparse information, major errors or omissions, poorly organised, inappropriate style. |
Solid Third | 45 | . Confused knowledge of topic. A number of errors or omissions, very poorly organised, inappropriate style. |
Low Third | 42 | Very confused knowledge of topic. Many errors or omissions, very poorly organised, inappropriate style. |
Fail |
| A very deficient précis. Minimal psychological content. Poorly written and lacking relevance, accuracy or structure. |
High Marginal Fail | 38 | Provides some evidence of (disorganised) knowledge. Inaccurate with numerous errors and omissions; very poorly organised; shows little grasp of the issues. |
Low Marginal Fail | 32 | One or two relevant ideas. |
Outright Fail | 10 | No real idea. |
Zero Marks | 0 | No answer, no psychological content. |