CISH Marking Criteria
Marks for assessed work: CISH MODULES
N.B. These marking guidelines refer only to work submitted for CSxxx. Options taught by departments are assessed in accordance with the procedures of the relevant department – these are normally published in the departmental Student Handbook.
Essay and examination marks fall into the following classes:
First Class 70 and above
Upper Second (2.1) 60 – 69
Lower Second (2.2) 50 – 59
Third 40 – 49
Fail 0 – 39
To achieve good marks you must ensure your work:
- Is relevant – answer the question set and think about the purpose of the question.
- Displays a wide knowledge of the topic through background reading (with accurate references).
- Is clearly presented, well constructed and draws a well-argued conclusion.
Marks awarded for essays submitted for CSxxx modules will indicate the following assessments:
80+ Very exceptional work of the highest standard.
70+ Outstanding work which answers the question comprehensively, shows real understanding of the topic based on wide reading, clearly demonstrates powers of critical analysis and originality of thought. Displays skilful command of language, economy, precision and clarity in expressing difficult ideas.
60+ A comprehensive answer which is well-argued and logical. Demonstrates good understanding of the reading material and does not rely on lectures alone. Shows some independence of thought and critical analysis. Well constructed and fluently written.
50+ A fairly good answer, less well constructed and with less evidence of background reading. May be derivative or disorganized in its presentation or fail to address an aspect of the question.
40+ Very derivative, unclear or superficial arguments and little evidence of wider reading. May fail to address the question, contain errors or lack cohesion. Poor presentation and style.
-40 Conspicuously brief or incomplete. Shows no understanding of the topic and fails to answer the question. No evidence of reading, very poor written style, errors of spelling and grammar.
0 Mark given when no work has been submitted for the assignment.
Students who feel their coursework has been marked unfairly have the right to request a second marking by another member of academic staff, provided the work was submitted by the deadline, on the understanding that a second marking can result in the mark awarded going down instead of up. The Module Supervisors and the Course Director monitor students’ progress at the end of the Autumn and Spring Terms. Students whose work or attendance is unsatisfactory may be asked to attend a progress review, either with the Module Supervisor or Course Director. In the case of serious academic concern the student may be referred to the Dean and/or the Progress Committee. It is in your own interests to ensure that if you are experiencing problems with your work you tell your adviser, class teacher or course supervisor at an early stage so that you can get help. The longer you leave it the more difficult it is to resolve.
The Centre Office does not operate a system of anonymous marking. The main reason for not adopting anonymised marking of coursework is the belief that marking provides an important point of contact with the student, through which individualized and personal forms of encouragement and involvement can be fostered. We believe that the quality of formative feedback is enhanced when the marker knows the student, and current work can be seen in the context of earlier assignments and classroom interactions. The comments we provide in coursework seek to encourage some students that they have done well and other students that they could do better. The Centre Office takes great care to mark fairly and effectively and we feel strongly that our ability to do this is heightened through knowing our students.