Marking criteria

The table below provides a general guide to the marking of Mining and Mineral Engineering undergraduate assessments that is based on the generic University assessment criteria for taught programmes

The marking scheme is highly generic, applying to different types of assessment and academic levels. It should therefore be read as an indicative rather than a prescriptive and comprehensive marking scheme.

Guideline Marking Scheme

%/ClassIndicative qualities of work

90-100

First

Unique, outstanding and insightful work, which is either of publishable quality in a reputable journal or attains the professional standards expected for the discipline without the need for revision.

89-90

First 

Originality, a critical awareness of the principles and practices of the discipline, thorough comprehension of the
assessment’s requirements, exceptional ability, insightful, fully realises learning outcomes for the assessment and develops them far beyond normal expectations

70-79

First 

Real insight, originality, logical and articulate, demonstrates a comprehensive coverage of subject matter, engagement with scholarship and research, very good analytical ability, no major flaws

65-69

2:1 

Sound and well thought out, organised, secure knowledge of subject, appropriate use of critical references, broadly realises the intended learning outcomes, well expressed, good analytical skills 

60-64

2:1 

Shows a firm grasp of most of the material, argues effectively and is able to make limited evaluation

55-59

2:2 

Competent, reasonable understanding of the material, presentation is satisfactory with some examples and referencing used. Structure and arguments are present but lack clarity and focus

50-54

2:2 

Largely descriptive in approach, generally sound, adequate or routine knowledge of subject, may be elements missing, limited evidence of independent thought

45-49

Third 

Material is largely relevant, but muddled, poorly argued, inadequate deployment of critical method, lacking focus, lacking depth of understanding, some important elements missing, a significant error, seriously deficient analytical skills 

40-44

Third 

Some relevant material, few or no relevant examples, little reading, unsubstantiated remarks, naïve thought, lack of awareness 

35-39

Fail 

Little to no evidence of learning outcomes having been achieved. Some evidence for comprehension but many basic misunderstandings or misinterpretations, demonstrates almost no ability to meet the requirements of the assessment 

30-34

Fail 

Unsatisfactory, lacking evidence of preparation, evaluation or reflective skills. Largely irrelevant 

25-29

Fail 

Unsatisfactory, little or no evidence of preparation or analysis. Hastily thrown together, presentation poor, expression/style/grammar extremely poor 

0-24 

Fail

Brief, irrelevant, confused, incomplete. No evidence of understanding of the material