MA marking criteria

General MA marking criteria

Please note that there are specific marking criteria in place for the Dissertation, reflective essays (HST6089, HST681, HST6042), engagement & participation work, Research Presentation and Presenting the Past Group Project.

This is a guide to the criteria used by staff in assigning a mark to a piece of work. Broadly speaking, work is assessed on four criteria:

To obtain a particular class of assessment a piece of work does not have to fulfil all the criteria listed for that class — judgements are formed on the basis of the predominant character of the work — but the guidelines help to show what examiners are looking for in their evaluations. Evidence of strength in some areas may compensate for weaknesses in others.

Distinction

90+

Work marked in this range will demonstrate all of the qualities required for a distinction in the 80-89 range. It will push the boundaries of existing scholarship and suggest major revisions to our understanding of the topic studied.

80-89

Work marked in this range will demonstrate all of the qualities required for a distinction in the 70-79 range. It will in addition demonstrate intellectual originality and imagination, and include highly innovative analysis.

70-79

Work marked at 70 or above should show a clear capacity for independent thought, offering perceptive and critical insights into historical problems, and framing arguments with nuance and complexity. The work should demonstrate an ability to handle historical concepts and methods with confidence; show an awareness of current debates in the discipline and be able to situate an argument clearly within them; demonstrate an ability to offer informed and constructive analysis of the work of others and a sophistication and confidence in the handling of historical, historiographical, and theoretical evidence. The work will demonstrate an extensive breadth of knowledge or, in the case of focussed studies, a sophisticated ability to situate the study in its contemporary historical context. Where relevant, primary sources should be deployed carefully and subjected to critical analysis. The prose should be written in fluent, lucid and stylish English, engaging the reader's interest, and presented accurately in line with departmental style. 

Merit

60-69

The work should demonstrate clear critical acuity and argumentative skill, the ability to evaluate information, frame cogent arguments with nuance and some complexity, handle and assess conflicting scholarly opinions, and demonstrate a considerable breadth of knowledge. The argument or analysis is founded on significant independent reading that goes beyond basic course materials. The prose should be clear and effective for the task set and should show some developing sense of style; the organization of the work should be clear and effective; the technical presentation should be mostly accurate.

Pass

50-59

The work shows some ability to evaluate information, but lacks a sustained focus and is ultimately more descriptive than analytical. Any attempt at argument is insufficiently developed or supported, or lacks coherence or clarity. Shows some understanding of the different strands of scholarship, yet is limited in its breadth of knowledge; is based on more limited or partly tangential reading, or over-reliant on basic course materials. The prose is clear, yet lacks fluency and may contain awkward or incoherent formulations; there may be inaccuracies in the organization and technical presentation of work.

Fail

40-49

The work fails to engage with historical argument and offers little or no critical discussion of the significance of the readings or, where relevant, primary source material. Contains a very small element of analysis and some relevant information. Some evidence of organization and structure, but muddled or unclear; based on very limited and/or tangential reading, or entirely reliant on basic course materials; contains repeated grammatical and spelling errors; weaknesses in presentation.

30-39

Contains very little or no relevant information, and no relevant analysis; is erroneous in matters of fact and interpretation; poorly written with numerous errors; very poorly organised.

1-29

No serious attempt to carry out the task assigned. No attempt at analysis. Little understanding or knowledge of the topic at hand.

0

Indicates work either not submitted or unworthy of marking.