SOAS: Postgraduate Essay and Exam Marking Criteria Guidelines
The guidelines below reflect the standards of work expected at postgraduate level. All assessed work is marked by a Teaching Assistant (TA) or a full-time member of staff, and a sample is then moderated by another member of staff. Any essay may be made available to the external examiner(s). Please feel free to discuss your essay and how your grade was arrived at with the appropriate member of staff.
80% and above (Distinction)
An 80+ mark will fulfil the following criteria:
- very significant ability to plan, organise and execute independently a research project or coursework assignment
- very significant ability to evaluate literature and theory critically and make informed judgements
- very high levels of creativity, originality and independence of thought
- very significant ability to evaluate critically existing methodologies and suggest new approaches to current research or professional practice
- very significant ability to analyse data critically
- outstanding levels of accuracy, technical competence, organisation, expression
70-79% (Distinction)
A 70-79 mark will fulfil the following criteria:
- significant ability to plan, organise and execute independently a research project or coursework assignment
- clear evidence of wide and relevant reading, referencing and an engagement with the conceptual issues
- capacity to develop a sophisticated and intelligent argument
- rigorous use and a sophisticated understanding of relevant source materials, balancing appropriately between factual detail and key theoretical issues. Materials are evaluated directly and their assumptions and arguments challenged and/or appraised
- correct referencing
- significant ability to analyse data critically
- original thinking and a willingness to take risks
60-69% (Merit)
A 60-69 mark will fulfil the following criteria:
- ability to plan, organise and execute independently a research project or coursework assignment
- strong evidence of critical insight and thinking
- a detailed understanding of the major factual and/or theoretical issues and directly engages with the relevant literature on the topic
- clear evidence of planning and appropriate choice of sources and methodology with correct referencing
- ability to analyse data critically
- capacity to develop a focussed and clear argument and articulate clearly and convincingly a sustained train of logical thought
50-59% (Pass below Merit)
A 50-59 mark will fulfil the following criteria:
- Ability to plan, organise and execute a research project or coursework assignment
- a reasonable understanding of the major factual and/or theoretical issues involved
- evidence of some knowledge of the literature with correct referencing
- ability to analyse data
- shows examples of a clear train of thought or argument
- the text is introduced and concludes appropriately
40-49% (Fail)
A Fail will be awarded in cases which:
- limited ability to plan, organise and execute a research project or coursework assignment
- some awareness and understanding of the literature and of factual or theoretical issues, but with little development
- limited ability to analyse data
- incomplete referencing
- limited ability to present a clear and coherent argument
20-39% (Fail)
A Fail will be awarded in cases which:
- very limited ability to plan, organise and execute a research project or coursework assignment
- fails to develop a coherent argument that relates to the research project or assignment
- does not engage with the relevant literature or demonstrate a knowledge of the key issues
- incomplete referencing
- contains clear conceptual or factual errors or misunderstandings
- only fragmentary evidence of critical thought or data analysis
0-19% (Fail)
A Fail will be awarded in cases which:
- no demonstrable ability to plan, organise and execute a research project or coursework assignment
- little or no knowledge or understanding related to the research project or assignment
- little or no knowledge of the relevant literature
- major errors in referencing
- no evidence of critical thought or data analysis
- incoherent argument
