- 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
Marking criteria
The table below provides a general guide to the marking of RE undergraduate assessments that is based on the University-approved scheme. 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
%/Class | Indicative 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. |
80-89 First |
Originality, a critical awareness of the principles and practices of the discipline, thorough comprehension of the |
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 |