- Homepage
- Key Information
- Students
- Taught programmes (UG / PGT)
- Computer Science
- Engineering
- Geology (CSM)
- Mathematics (Exeter)
- Mathematics (Penryn)
- Mining and Minerals Engineering (CSM)
- Physics and Astronomy
- Renewable Energy
- Natural Sciences
- CSM Student and Staff Handbook
- Student Services and Procedures
- Student Support
- Events and Colloquia
- International Students
- Students as Change Agents (SACA)
- Student Staff Liaison Committees (SSLC)
- The Exeter Award
- Peer Support
- Skills Development
- Equality and Diversity
- Athena SWAN
- Outreach
- Living Systems Institute Webpage
- Alumni
- Info points and hubs
- Inbound Exchange Students
- Taught programmes (UG / PGT)
- Staff
- PGR
- Health and Safety
- Computer Support
- National Student Survey (NSS)
- Intranet Help
Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences Intranet
Project marking criteria
| Class | Range | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| I |
90-100
|
An outstanding project: All the qualities of an excellent project. In addition the work should be virtually publishable, as it stands, by itself or as a significant component of a paper, in a good journal.
|
| I | 80-89 | An excellent project: Evidence of originality in approach and / or interpretation. Results as good as can be expected at this level. Research and analysis wholly sound. Report concise, very well organised, relevance to field clearly understood. Discussion shows real insight. Only minor inaccuracies or other shortcomings. |
| I | 70-79 | A very good project: All the qualities of a good project, but with some evidence of insight and originality. Results satisfactory and well analysed. Report well-written, carrying the conviction that the science is thoroughly understood and the implications of the work full appreciated. |
| II | 65-69 | A good project: Research efficiently conducted, with a well-organised well-presented report, but lacking insight and originality. Good reference to the work of others. Sound interpretation, analysis and presentation of data. |
| II | 60-64 | A fairly good project: Generally sound, but with some weakenesses in experimentation, understanding, analysis, interpretation and / or presentation. |
| II ii | 55-59 | A pedestrian project: The student has carried out instructions and achieved results, but the report shows little or no original thought, interpretation or synthesis; or has significant deficiencies in at least one section. |
| II ii | 50-54 | A weak project: Some results have been achieved, but the experimentation, analysis and / or interpretation show significant weaknesses. The report may show poor organisation. |
| III | 45-49 | A poor project: Few data and / or poor comprehension. Report poorly organised with significant weaknesses in more than one section. |
| III | 40-44 | A very poor project: Serious deficiencies in experimentation, analysis and understanding, but some mitigating qualities, eg good presentation, some basic understanding of principles involved. |
| PASS | 35-39 | Some relevant material, but serious omissions, errors of practicle and interpretation. |
| FAIL | 25-34 |
Clear fail: Evidence that the student has carried out some limited experimental work, but the project distinctly fails on the grounds of experimental inadequacy, incompetent analysis and / or poor interpretation. |
| FAIL | 15-24 |
Poor fail: Minimal experimental content. Little relevance to the aim of the project or very short report with no evidence that it would have been better if longer. |
| FAIL | 1-14 | Very poor fail: Almost total lack of content or very short report with virtually no merit. |