essay marking criteria university

Academic Manual

• 4. Marking & Moderation

Section 4: Marking & Moderation

Published for 2023-24

4.1 Overarching Principles

4.2 responsibilities, 4.3 markers, 4.4 anonymity, 4.5 marking criteria, 4.6 second marking, 4.6.1 minimum requirements, 4.6.2 parity meetings, 4.6.3 sampling, 4.6.4 reconciliation of marks, 4.6.5 third markers, 4.6.6 documentation of marking, 4.7 internal moderation, advice for students.

Further information and advice for students about assessment is available on the  Examinations & Awards webpages .

Recent Changes

A guide to changes to the regulations are available from the  Recent Changes  page.

• Health Sciences

University | A to Z | Departments

• Information for current students
• Teaching and learning information

Marking Criteria

• Student home page
• Board of Studies
• Timetables, Assessment schedules, Course plans, Module descriptors

Midwifery and Non-Medical Prescribing

Pre-registration nursing and nursing associate, postgraduate programmes, module specific.

Some assessments for example poster presentations and OSCEs will have a separate marking criteria and students will be made aware of this when they commence a module.

Department of Health Sciences, Seebohm Rowntree Building University of York , Heslington , York , YO10 5DD , UK Tel: work 01904 321321 | Fax: fax 01904 321383 | [email protected]

Legal statements | Privacy | Cookies | Accessibility © University of York | Modify | Direct Edit

Cookies on our website

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use our site. And we'd like to serve you some cookies set by other services to show you relevant content.

Skip to main content Sussex homepage Staff

• Student Hub
• Exams and assessments
• Results and feedback
• Current location: How your work is marked

How your work is marked

Find out about the process we go through to assess your work and give you feedback.

Marking criteria

All your work will be assessed against specific marking criteria.

This means your work will be marked using the same process as for everyone else.

Before you start an assessment, find out about the marking criteria. This gives you the best chance of doing well.

Ask your School where to find the marking criteria.

The marking process

Our marking process is the same for all types of assessment – for example, an exam, essay or presentation.

After we get your work

The marking process begins once your deadline has passed or your exam has finished.

A marker will assess your work against the marking criteria and give you a provisional mark and feedback. Marking normally happens anonymously.

Checking marks

After provisional marks and feedback have been given, a checking process takes place to ensure consistency.

The exact process varies depending on the assessment.

For some assessments someone who hasn’t been involved in the marking process reviews a sample of the work.

This is to make sure marks and feedback are fair, consistent and appropriate.

An external examiner (normally an academic from another university) then reviews the same sample.

Your mark is published

If your assessment took place during:

• a teaching period , you’ll usually get your mark within three weeks
• the semester 1 assessment period , you normally get your mark by week 3 of semester 2
• the semester 2 assessment period , you get your mark after your School’s exam board has met.

You can check when your module marks for semesters 1 and 2 will be published by logging into Sussex Direct .

Important: Marks are provisional until they have been confirmed by the exam board.

If you resit one of your assessments, we follow the same marking process.

Results from the August resit period are normally published after a board meets in September.

See more about resitting an assessment .

If you want to discuss the mark you’ve been given, see your tutor.

If you’re unhappy with the decision of the exam board, find out about our appeals process .

Exceptional circumstances

If you think your performance in an assessment was impaired, you can submit a claim for exceptional circumstances .

Regulations

Find out about regulations for exams and assessments .

See more from Results and feedback

We use cookies on reading.ac.uk to improve your experience, monitor site performance and tailor content to you.

Read our cookie policy to find out how to manage your cookie settings.

This site may not work correctly on Internet Explorer. We recommend switching to a different browser for a better experience.

Assessment Handbook

The Assessment Handbook presents the University's assessment policies and procedures topic-by-topic, following the broad sequence of the assessment process. It brings together policies and procedures previously contained in the: Code of Practice on the Assessment of Taught Programmes; University-wide Framework for Classification and Progression for First Degrees; Marking Criteria and Classification Framework for Taught Postgraduate Programmes; Examination and Assessment Procedures Handbook, and a sub-set of the Governing Regulations. These documents have now been discontinued. It should be noted that the Code of Practice on External Examining remains as a separate document.

Please note that the introduction of the Assessment Handbook constitutes a restructuring and consolidation of policies, which remain unchanged in substance except for a few places where anomalies were identified or a policy needed to be updated in the light of changing context. None of the minor changes is to the detriment of students. A brief summary of the changes is available here Summary for UBTL Assessment Handbook

The Assessment Handbook was approved by the University Board for Teaching and Learning on 31 October 2017 and takes effect immediately.

Section 1: Ordinance and Governing Principles

Section 2: Key Dates 

Section 3: Delegations within Schools and Examination Representatives

Section 4: Nomination and Appointment of Internal and External Examiners

Section 5: Assessment Regimes

Section 6: Conduct of Assessment: Examinations and Coursework (including Annex 1: Examination question papers and Annex 2: Online submission protocols)

• Annex 2: Online Submission Protocols

Section 7: Examination and Assessment Arrangements for Students with Specific needs

• 7a: Retrospective allowance in assessed work for students diagnosed with a disability during their programme of study

Section 8: Exceptional Circumstances Policy

• 8a: Exceptional Circumstances: Post-Experience Programmes (HBS)

Section 9: Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct

• Annex 1: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools, Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct

Section 10: Marking (including Annex 1: University marking criteria for Level 4-6 and Annex 2: University marking criteria framework at Level 7)

• Memo on anonymous marking and moderation: guidance on practical and appropriate consideration (PDF-131KB)

Section 11: Verification and Submission of Marks

Section 12: Providing Feedback to Students on their Performance

Section 13: Moderation with annexes

Section 14: Retention of Exam Scripts, Coursework and In-Class Tests

Section 15: Progression

• For 2023/24 (and onwards) entrants only - Section 15: Progression

Section 16: Awards

Section 17: Awards: Bachelor's (including Annex 1: Programmes for which exceptional arrangements have been approved by Senate)

• For 2022/23 (and onwards) entrants only - Section 17: Awards: Bachelor's (including Annex 1: Programme for which exceptional arrangement have been approved by Senate)

Section 18: Awards: Integrated Masters

Section 19: Awards: Postgraduate Master's, Postgraduate Diploma, Postgraduate Certificate

Section 20: Awards: Certificate of Higher Education

Section 21: Awards: Diploma of Higher Education

Section 22: Awards: Foundation Degrees

• For 2022/23 (and onwards) entrants only -  Section 22: Awards: Foundation Degrees

Section 23: Awards: Ordinary Bachelor's Degree

• For 2022/23 (and onwards entrants only -  Section 23: Awards: Ordinary Degrees

Section 24: Awards: Graduate Diploma, Graduate Certificate

Section 25: Awards: Professional Graduate Certificate in Education [Please refer to the programme specifications for the PGCE Primary, PGCE Secondary and PGCE School Direct Primary]

Section 26: Examiners' Meetings  

Section 27: Recording, Documentation and Publication of Assessment Decisions

Section 28: Re-assessment (These provisions apply to the Finalists cohorts in 2021/22 and onwards)

• Section 28: Re-assessment (These provisions apply to the Finalist cohorts in 2020/21 and before)

Section 29: Appeals for the Review of Results and for the Review of Marks

Section 30: Visiting Students

Section 31: Quality Management and Enhancement

Contact us:

• Email: [email protected]
• Tel: 0118 378 7097

• Professional Work Based Learning
• Contingency classification and progression regulations
• Coming soon
• Exceptional classification and progression regulations
• Exceptional regulations: Covid-19
• Academic regulations
• Personal tutoring, student support and development
• Assessment overview and School responsibilities
• Assessment Regulations
• Assessment and marking policies
• Degree classification
• Policy on circumstances affecting students' ability to study and complete assessments
• Extenuating circumstances
• Fitness to practise procedures
• Policy on academic misconduct
• Policy on proofreading
• Programme and module design and approval
• Concerns, complaints and appeals
• Registration and attendance
• Research degree programmes
• Student engagement and representation
• Studies away from the University
• Recent changes

Policy on marking and grading

This page contains the University's policy on marking and grading. Its content is applicable to staff and students across all of the UK, China and Malaysia campuses.

Search the manual

1. internal and external examiners.

Includes:  Postgraduate students with teaching responsibilities; responsibilities of Head of School

All assessments for programmes and modules leading to a University award must involve both one or more internal examiners and one or more independent external examiners. In addition, all members of academic staff will act as internal examiners in the subjects in their School.

The School has a duty to ensure that any individuals acting as internal examiners who are not academic staff of the University, are fully briefed and have relevant experience and sufficient knowledge of their subject area to assess students' knowledge and skills. For more information, please consult the following:

Policy on occasional teachers

Postgraduate students with teaching responsibilities may also act as internal examiners. For more information, please consult the following.

Policy on University of Nottingham students who teach

In respect of any assessment carried out by postgraduate students with teaching responsibilities, Heads of School should ensure that:

• They are supervised by a named member of academic staff
• They are provided with training appropriate to their role in the assessment process
• Assessments that contribute to the final module/programme mark:

1.   Are moderated by a member of academic staff

2.    Are limited, as far as practicable, to those elements of assessment that do not contribute to the degree classification

• Such assessments which do not contribute to the final module/programme mark are second marked where appropriate on a sampling basis by a member of academic staff.

The University of Nottingham policy on the appointment and responsibilities of External Examiners can be found online. For more information, please consult the following:

Appointment and responsibilities of External Examiners

Students should be informed by their School when and how they will receive results and the various stages of the process of distributing results.

lndependent Assessors for Apprenticeship Programmes

On integrated apprenticeship programmes the End-Point Assessment serves as a final credit bearing module for the degree. It also constitutes the summative assessment for the apprenticeship award. Each specific End-Point Assessment plan outlines the final classification criteria for the apprenticeship award. Thus assessment of this module will need to meet the requirements of the published apprenticeship End-Point Assessment plan in addition to contributing to the degree award. 

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) prescribes that the assessment of the End-Point Assessment is performed by suitably qualified Independent Assessors. These are appointed internally or externally and they will provide the grade for the overall outcome for the apprenticeship award. Dependent on the programme, the grade to contribute to the degree award may also be provided by the Independent Assessor/s, and thus may not be a member of University staff.

2. Marking criteria

Includes:  role of School Boards; requirements of the School; Marking criteria examples; double-marking

It is recognised that there is a need for School Boards to conduct the assessment of students in a manner that is appropriate to individual disciplines and to the methods of assessment employed.

All Schools are required to have written marking criteria across the full range of marks available (0-100) which is published in School Handbooks. Marking criteria must include categories from 70% to 100% and 0% to 40%. Marking advice should be available to markers in relation to all forms of assessment used within the School/Department.

The School's marking criteria should be signposted in its programme specifications (Section C. Supplementary Regulations, 3. Assessment).

For examples of marking criteria, please consult the following:

In pursuit of assessment practices that are fair, valid and reliable the University recognises double-marking (preferably "blind" where the first mark is not made known to the second marker) as good practice for all assessments where appropriate.

For apprenticeship programmes, to meet requirements outlined by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), the criteria outlined in the specific End-Point Assessment plan for each apprenticeship standard should be followed. For more information please consult the following:

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education

Permitted differences to local School policy on marking criteria may be required, for example providing acceptable tolerances in assessment word count. 

3. Overview of assessment policies and procedures 

Includes: assessment process

Quality assurance of assessment consists of several elements. These can be distinguished according to the different stages of the assessment process at which they operate:

• Pre-assessment activities (including guidance for students and markers about the assessment activity; scrutiny of the assessment activity by internal or external examiners; calibration of standards among markers)
• The assessment itself (including measures to assure the fairness of assessment conditions, such as invigilation, appropriate adjustments for students with support plans, and external review of exam papers)
• Marking (including use of clear standards,  anonymity of marking, and double marking where appropriate)
• Internal Moderation (checking that standards have been applied consistently during marking)
• Marks adjustment (adjustment of marks in light of a flaw in the assessment to maintain standards across cohorts)
• Scrutiny by External Examiners
• Approval of marks by Exam Board

The appropriate combination of these elements of quality assurance will vary by discipline and assessment task, so some variation in practice between Schools is to be expected and not all elements will be appropriate to all assessments. Further information regarding moderation and marks adjustment can be found below.

4. Moderation

Includes: role of   external examiners; sample size; moderation assessment report form

Moderation is the process of checking that standards have been applied correctly and consistently during the marking of an assessment. It is distinct from marking (including double marking) and from marks adjustment. Unlike double marking, moderation should not result in a change to the mark awarded to just one student; any changes to marks following moderation should be applied systematically to all affected students taking the assessment (e.g. all students who answered a given question). Unlike marks adjustment, moderation examines the application of standards to a unit of assessment, and does not compare marks across different cohorts.

Moderation is also distinct from the scrutiny of assessment by External Examiners. External Examiners will not be involved in the marking process as their role is to ensure that policies and regulations have been appropriately applied, that the assessment process is fair and robust and to ensure that standards applied are consistent with subject benchmark statements and other institutions.

All assessments that contribute to the determination or classification of an award must have been subject to moderation. Moderation must have been conducted by someone other than the first marker.

An absolute minimum number of student submissions for each assessment must be reviewed by the moderator. That number is determined by the number of students registered to take the assessment as follows:

Schools should decide for themselves the appropriate sample size for moderation for each assessment and it is expected that this will often exceed the minimum. This decision should be based on the nature of the assessment, its weighting (i.e. number of credits), the number of first markers and their level of experience. 

Sampling for moderation should be random but should include at least one submission from each mark range (where they exist): 0-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-100.

Schools should have a clear and explicit written policy governing the moderation of marking which should be available to students (for example via School handbooks and School Community Moodle pages). All markers in a School should be clearly briefed on these processes each academic year.

These processes should specify:

• What proportion of work is sampled during moderation for each type of assessment (subject to the above minimum)
• Whether the sample must include work of certain kinds (e.g. whether special attention is paid to work marked as borderline)
• What should happen if a moderator believes that standards have not been applied correctly

Schools should have a uniform system for fully recording the process of moderation so that examiners can clearly understand how moderation has occurred and what consequences have arisen from it. These records should be available to External Examiners as soon as possible and be tabled at relevant Examination Boards. An example of such a system is provided below from the Faculty of Arts:

For apprenticeship programmes, moderation will be in line with School policy, unless there are alternative requirements specific to the End-Point Assessment module. Moderation of this module will be undertaken by the appointed Independent Assessors or by internal staff who are independent of prior teaching. This will be determined and arranged locally.

5. Marks adjustment 

Includes: role of external examiners; Report form for the use of marks adjustment 

A School is expected to consider data regarding marks on modules for which it has responsibility (for example, median mark and variance for each module) to identify possible issues with the delivery and assessment of the module prior to the Exam Board. Normally this analysis would also be taken into account in the School’s regular review of modules.

Where there has been a clear flaw in the assessment process (e.g. mistakes on a question paper), Schools have a responsibility to ensure that this does not have a significant impact on the fairness or robustness of the final marks. Where such a flaw is identified Schools should develop a suitable adjustment to be applied to all marks and report this to the External Examiners.

Where no potential flaws have been identified please complete the summary report form:

Where potential flaws have been identified by markers, reported by students or may come to light because of comparison of marks profiles (e.g. comparison of median mark and variance) with other modules taken by the same cohort or with the same module taken by previous cohorts. Please complete the marks adjustment report for the affected module(s):

Review and sign off of the marks adjustment form (including nil returns) should take place at the Exam Board. Any approved adjustment and its rationale should then be communicated clearly to all students who took the module (normally via the module feedback report) and communicated to Quality and Student Management Systems Team (within Registry and Academic Affairs) for report to Quality and Standards Committee (QSC) using the forms above. 

The module level information report must detail the rationale for marks adjustment; the method used; the method used to inform students; and any remedial measures implemented as a result of marks adjustment.  These forms should be appended to the summary form submitted. A separate report form should be used for each module where marks have been subject to adjustment. Schools are expected to submit an annual report even if there is a nil return. Where there is a nil return a single summary form  should be used.

Reports should be submitted at the same time as the main Examination Board recommendations in June/July (Undergraduate programmes) and by November (Postgraduate Taught programmes). 

6. Viva Voce examinations

Viva voce examinations may only be used as part of a documented assessment procedure and should not be used as part of the consideration of borderline candidates or in the final decision making process.

The only exception to this is where an external body requires that a Viva Voce examination is held as a separate assessment forming part of the decision-making process. In such a case the School must publish a written policy that must be included in the student handbook or otherwise drawn to the attention of students. It should address the following issues:

• The name of the body that requires the viva voce examination to take place
• The role of the viva in the assessment/classification process
• Who has the authority to call a student for a viva
• Selection criteria
• Whether attendance is compulsory or voluntary
• Notice given to a student
• Procedures followed and documents produced
• Whether a student can request a viva  

Formal records of all such vivas should be kept. 

Schools are encouraged to organise meetings for external examiners with representative groups of students as a mechanism for ensuring quality and standards control but this should not form part of the assessment process.

7. Penalties and legibility

University policy on penalties for late submission of assessed coursework can be found online. For more information, please consult the following:

Policy on penalties for late submission of assessed work

University policy on legibility of work submitted for assessment can be found online. For more information, please consult the following:

Legibility of work submitted for assessment

8. Marking by numbers

Includes: anonymous marking

For formal written examinations the University operates a marking by numbers (or anonymous marking) system. For more information about the marking by number system, please consult the following:

Marking by number

Schools are encouraged to mark coursework anonymously where possible. 

Schools should ensure that clear statements of the responsibilities of those involved in computation, checking and recording of assessment data exist.

9. Rounding

Includes: degree classification; progression

Degree Classification

For the purposes of classifying undergraduate degrees, marks will be rounded at the stages detailed under Degree Classification for each individual module.

The University convention on rounding of numeric marks for all awards is as follows:

Marks should be rounded at two stages only: 

• When two or more unit marks are computed (using a weighting formula), the result should be rounded into a single integer module mark
• When the overall weighted average mark has been computed, it should be rounded into a single overall integer mark, before a classification is assigned. 

Rounding means that any mark of x.5 and decimal fractions above, becomes the next highest integer e.g. 69.5 is rounded to 70, 59.5 to 60, and so on. Decimal fractions below x.5 are rounded to the next lowest integer - for example, 69.4 is rounded to 69. For the purposes of rounding, the mark should be truncated and only the first decimal place is used (e.g. 69.45 becomes 69.4, which is rounded to 69).

Following the rounding convention set out above, overall marks of 39.5, 49.5, 59.5, and 69.5 will be rounded to 40, 50, 60 & 70 respectively.

Progression

For the purposes of progression, overall average marks will be rounded to the nearest integer so that marks of 29.5, 39.5 and 49.5 will be rounded to 30, 40 and 50 respectively. Decimal fractions below x.5 are rounded to the next lowest integer - for example, 69.4 is rounded to 69. For the purposes of rounding, the mark should be truncated and only the first decimal place is used (e.g. 69.45 becomes 69.4, which is rounded to 69).

UNUK students   

Student services, unnc students , unm students , staff       , related content.

Portland Building, University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham, NG7 2RD

Legal information

• Terms and conditions
• Posting rules
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Charity gateway
• Cookie policy

Connect with the University of Nottingham through social media and our blogs .

Browser does not support script.

Education Policy and Quality

Mark scale for undergraduate modules (from autumn 2022/23).

This page applies to undergraduate modules from autumn 2023 or later.

All undergraduate modules at FHEQ level 4, 5 and 6 are marked using one overall system, which runs from 0-100.

Marks fall into different classes of performance:

70-100 First Class

60-69 Second Class, Upper Division (also referred to as "Upper Second" or "2.1")

50-59 Second Class, Lower Division (also referred to as "Lower Second" or "2.2")

40-49 Third Class

Within this overall system, your assessed work and exams will be marked on one of two scales, depending on certain characteristics of the assessment or exam. The department or lecturer running any particular module will be able to tell you which scale applies to the module.

Numerically based work, work with smaller questions (all points on 0-100 scale)

Where an assessment or exam is based on numerical work, or where there are a large number of questions in an exam with small numbers of marks for each question, we can use all of the points from 0 to 100. This is typical of many assessments and exams in Science, some language work, some exams in Economics and the Business School and so on.

Other work (20 point marking scale)

Where an assessment or exam is a single piece of work, or a small number of long exam answers, work is marked using the scale above. This is typical for essay-based subjects, dissertations and many pieces of work where there is no right answer and the quality of your analysis and argument is particularly important.

The descriptors in the table below are interpreted as appropriate to the subject and the year/level of study, and implicitly cover good academic practice and the avoidance of academic misconduct. Departments publish more detailed marking criteria.

Some descriptors cover a range of marks, with the location within each group dependent on the extent to which the elements in the descriptor and departmental/faculty marking criteria are met.

02/10/2023 - Addition underlined: "All undergraduate modules at FHEQ level 4, 5 and 6 are marked using one overall system, which runs from 0-100." Approved by Senate 26/04/23. Previous version

Home | Contact us | Staff | Students | iExeter (Staff and Students) | Site map | 中文网

• Alumni and supporters
• Our departments
• Visiting us
• Academic Partnerships Handbook
• Approval and Revision of Taught Modules and Programmes Handbook
• 1 - Introduction
• 2 - Setting and submission of assessments
• 3 - Examinations
• 4 - Assessing students with disabilities

5 - Marking

• 6 - Feedback
• 7 - Assessment, progression and awarding committees
• 8 - Progression
• 9 - Classification of awards
• 10 - Mitigation: Deadline extensions and deferrals
• 11 - Consequence of failure in assessment
• 12 - Academic conduct and practice
• 13 - Review and publication of degree outcomes
• Annex A - Examination papers and rubrics
• Annex B - Examination major incident procedures
• Annex C - Programme / discipline committee
• Annex D - Faculty assessment, progression and awarding committee
• Annex E - University assessment, progression and awarding committee
• Annex F - Mitigation
• Annex G - Scaling Guidance
• Annex H - Template for reporting on the internal review of degree classifications
• Annex I - Template for preparation of the annual external Degree Outcomes Statement
• Annex J - Generalised timeline for annual internal review of degree outcomes and preparation of external Degree Outcomes Statement
• Annex K - Sharing of Examination Papers or Questions Investigation Guidance
• Annex L - Viva Voce Process
• Credit and Qualifications Framework
• Exceptional Circumstances Handbook
• External Examining Handbook
• Learning and Teaching Support Handbook
• Postgraduate Research Handbook
• Quality Review & Enhancement Framework
• Student Cases Handbook
• Special Provisions for Online Programmes (including those offered in partnership with Keypath Education)
• Special Provisions for Healthcare Programmes
• Special Provisions for Degree Apprenticeships
• Special Provisions for Programmes with Accreditation Licenced by the Engineering Council

Chapter 5 - Marking

5.1 Principles for Marking Assessments 5.2 Pass Mark for Individual Modules 5.3  Anonymity 5.4  Viva Voce 5.5  Moderation and Sampling 5.6  Generic Mark Scheme 5.7  Marking Criteria 5.8  Scaling of Marks 5.9  Marking the Work of Students with ILPs or Diagnosed with Specific Learning Difficulties (where competence of language is not being assessed) 5.10 Marking Criteria for Group Work Assignments

• All marking must be based on the quality of students’ work and be free from bias or prejudice ( see 5.3 ).
• No module’s marking should rely solely on the judgement of one marker.
• All summative assessment must be subject to moderation.
• Where the anonymity of candidates cannot be assured independent double marking must  be applied to a sample.
• All Faculties (or delegated Schools)  must publish marking criteria for all assessment.
• The relevant marking criteria must be applied consistently.
• It must be explicit that the responsibility for proofreading students' work lies with the student.
• Staff must signpost students to appropriate proofreading support and tools, such as those provided by Study Zone. 
• Staff must be willing to use the whole range of marks when marking assessment(s). Where a marking scheme is introduced which does not use the full scale of marks this must be clearly communicated to students.
• The pass mark for individual modules at Levels 3-6 is 40%. Marks below 40% constitute failure.
• The pass mark for individual modules at Level 7 is 50%. Marks below 50% constitute failure.
• Where a student on an undergraduate programme is taking a module at Level 7 the module must be marked according to the normal postgraduate marking criteria for the module and the marking scheme for postgraduate modules.
• Where a student on a postgraduate programme is taking a module at Level 6 or below, the module must be marked according to the normal undergraduate marking criteria for the module and the marking scheme for undergraduate modules. The mark obtained must be used in the calculation of the credit-weighted mean for the programme as a whole (i.e., there must be no ‘scaling' of marks).
• The mark obtained must be used in the calculation of the credit-weighted mean for the programme as a whole (i.e. there must be no ‘scaling’ of marks).
• The most effective means of demonstrating that marking is free from bias or prejudice is to ensure that students’ assessment is anonymous. All assessments should be anonymous. However, the University recognises that this is not always practically possible. Where assessment cannot be anonymous, Faculties (or delegated Schools)  must ensure, and be able to demonstrate, that marking is fair, reliable, consistent and transparent. Students must be fully informed of the marking criteria and processes.
• The viva voce provides the marking team with a means of determining whether work submitted by a candidate is their work. This is achieved by assessing the thoroughness of the candidate’s understanding of the submission, and the candidate’s ability to explain and justify its contents.
• Marking and moderation are conducted anonymously in line with the University’s guidelines and therefore a student would only be identified once it had been determined that a viva voce is required.
• This process will allow a member of the marking team together with a senior academic (e.g. Head of Department, Chair of APAC or Director of Education) to interview a student to discuss the submitted work to establish the authenticity of the material.
• The implementation of a viva process will allow concerns to be appropriately measured and evidenced before a decision is made as to whether or not these concerns should be pursued through the University’s academic conduct procedures. The Viva Voce process is outlined in Appendix L.
• Moderation is the process used to assure that assessment outcomes are fair and reliable, and that assessment criteria have been applied consistently. Any moderation method must be proportionate to ensure fairness, reliability and consistent application of the criteria.
• Independent double marking: where a piece of work is marked by two markers independently, who agree a final mark for the assessment. Neither marker is aware of the other’s mark when formulating their own mark.
• Double open marking: where a piece of work is marked by two markers, who agree a final mark for the assessment.
• Calibration of marking within teams of multiple markers, in advance of team members marking their own batch of assessments. Calibration involves the scrutiny of a sample of submissions being graded by all markers collectively. The sample should be sufficient in number to ensure the grading approach being taken by all markers is consistent. Following calibration processes, the subsequent moderation processes may be limited to scrutinising (i) submissions that are borderline (e.g. within 1% of a class boundary), and (ii) other submissions considered to be in need of moderation by the module lead.
• Check marking: where an assessment is read by a second marker to determine whether the mark awarded by the first marker is appropriate.
• Where double marking or check marking is applied as the method of moderation the marking team should agree a final set of marks for the whole cohort and if they cannot agree a final mark, a third marker should be used to adjudicate an agreed mark.
• These processes should also identify the marking patterns of individual markers to facilitate comparisons and identify inconsistencies.
• Where model answers are agreed by staff marking assessments, it is allowable for these assessments not to be moderated. However, the model answer must be reviewed and agreed by at least two markers in advance.
• The sample must  be representative and cover the full range of marks;
• The sample must be sufficient to assure the APAC and External Examiner(s) that the requisite academic standards have been maintained, and that all marking is fair, reliable and valid (i.e. free from bias or prejudice, based on the quality of students’ work, and consistent with the relevant marking criteria);
• APACs and External Examiners must be informed of the methodology (or methodologies) by which assessments are selected for internal moderation, so they can advise on its sufficiency and appropriateness.
• The sample should not be the same sample as used in external moderation;
• The selected sample should be proportionate to the risk to standards posed by each module/assessment, bearing in mind the credit-weighting of the assessment, the experience of the primary marker, and historic trends, such as whether the module or assessment are new or have recently changed in structure/format, or if marks have previously had to be adjusted as a result of moderation/scaling;
• Where responsibility for assessing full submissions (as opposed to selected sections/questions) is distributed amongst a team of multiple markers, marking calibration processes should occur in advance of each marker marking their batch of assessments, in the following circumstances: a new team (or team member) is undertaking the marking, the form of assessment is new, and/or the module is new (or significantly revised);
• Where possible, the sample should include at least one item marked according to the marking guidelines for specific learning difficulties.
• Where a cohort includes a submission(s) made via an alternative form of assessment (as per the Inclusive Practice within Academic Study policy), the sample should include at least one alternative assessment item.
• For modules, where there is only one primary marker, at least XX% or a minimum of XX (whichever is greater) of the submitted assessments, but to a maximum of XX submissions in total. (E.g. (a) at least 10% or a minimum of 10 (whichever is greater) of the submitted assessments should be moderated, but to a maximum of 25 submissions in total; or (b) at least 5% or a minimum of 5 (whichever is greater) of the submitted assessments, but to a maximum of 15 submissions in total .)
• For modules, where multiple markers are used to mark a batch of assessments, sampling  should  be undertaken as above with regard to each marker rather than with regard to the whole batch of assessments. (This does not apply (i) where each member of the marking team takes responsibility for marking specific sections/questions: in that situation standard sampling should be undertaken as above, or (ii) where marking calibration processes are undertaken in advance of team members marking their own batch of assessments.)
• The University has a generic mark scheme (that draws on QAA 1 and SEEC 2 guidelines) that characterises the level of complexity, demand and relative autonomy expected of students at each Level of the curriculum (as detailed in the Credit and Qualifications Framework ). The generic mark scheme can be found here .
• All marking criteria must be consistent with the University's published percentage boundaries (see Chapter 9 ) for degree classification.
• To ensure consistency all summative marking processes should be numerical, unless an alternative scheme has been approved by the Pro-Vice Chancellor and Executive Dean (PVC) and has been clearly communicated to students.
• External Examiners must have an opportunity to comment on the assessment criteria and model answers for all summative assessments.
• The purpose of scaling is to rectify anomalies in module and/or component mark distributions that arise from unanticipated circumstances and should be used in exceptional circumstances only. Hence, the assessment criteria and practices for any module that has its marks scaled should be reviewed, in consultation with the module/ programme External Examiner, in order to reduce the chance that scaling will be necessary in subsequent years. Guidance for scaling is set out in Annex G . The guidance should be read in the context of this Handbook, and the provisions of this Handbook remain in force.
• APACS will be provided with descriptive module statistics (mean, median, and standard deviation) based on a comprehensive reference dataset of the student cohort performance in the current academic year and comparable historic mean module marks from the three previous academic years, where they are available Historic mean module marks from academic years that have been designated as Exceptional Years, will be excluded. APACs will undertake this comparison at module level, noting that scaling will normally be undertaken at module level rather than at individual component level.
• APACS will then consider the application of appropriate adjustments to correct any statistically significant deviation. For example, should a module show a distribution of student attainment significantly below that of previous year groups, then the APAC will consider scaling the cohort results to make them comparable with the attainment in previous years. Where a module has been run for the first time in the current academic year, an appropriate composite historic mean based on appropriate cognate module(s) will be used for the comparison or reference made to programme level and/or year group metrics.
• The raw marks, together with the rationale under which they were awarded, must always be made available to the Assessment, Progression and Awarding Committee.
• Scaling must not unfairly benefit or disadvantage a subset of students (e.g. failures). This means that any scaling function applied to a set of marks must be monotonically increasing, i.e. it must not reverse the rank-order of any pair of students. The definition of any scaling function used (its domain) must encompass the full range of raw marks from 0 to 100%. For example, 'Add 3 marks to all students' or 'Multiply all marks by a factor of 0.96' are both valid scaling functions. 'Add 4 marks to all failures and leave the rest unchanged.' is not acceptable because it would cause a student whose raw mark was 39 (a fail) to leapfrog a student who got 41 (a pass).
• External Examiners must always be consulted about the process.
• All decisions  must be clearly recorded in the minutes of the Assessment, Progression and Awarding Committee (APAC), and must include details of the rationale for scaling, any noted objections (and any responses to these objections) and the impact on marks.
• The system used to identify modules as potential candidates for scaling must be transparent.
• For guidance on a range of accessibility issues, including marking guidelines, refer to the Services' Advice for Staff website.
• Marking criteria for group work assignments must include whether the marks will be allocated individually or to the group, and how they will be allocated.
• If peer assessment is used, the criteria for this should also be included, as well as how this will contribute to the overall mark. Please also see further guidance in Chapter 10 of the Learning Teaching Support Handbook: Peer and Self Assessment in Student Work: Principles and Criteria.
• Further information on group work assignments and strategies for Learning and Teaching which provide an inclusive experience for all students is provided in the Education Toolkit: https://universityofexeteruk.sharepoint.com/sites/EducationToolkit/SitePages/Guidance-for-Assessed-Group-Work.aspx

1 Quality Assurance Agency frameworks for higher education qualifications and credit

2 Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer 

Last reviewed October 2023

Updated January 2024

Back to top

Using our site  |  Freedom of Information  |  Data Protection  |  Copyright & disclaimer  |  Privacy & Cookies  | 

Department of Philosophy

• Philosophy Links
• What is Philosophy?
• Philosophers on Philosophy
• Why study Philosophy?
• The Department
• Introduction to Undergraduate Studies
• Undergraduate Courses
• Requirements for a Major in Philosophy (PHI):
• PPE Humanities: Philosophy, Politics and Economics
• How to Succeed in a Philosophy Course
• How to Write a Philosophy Essay
• Avoiding Plagarism
• Philosophy Exam Tips
• Philosophy Plus

Marking Criteria

• Plagiarism Policy
• Introduction to Postgraduate Studies
• Postgraduate Courses
• Current Students
• Postgraduate Applications
• Postgraduate Brochure
• Guide to Producing a Research Proposal for Studies in Philosophy
• Bernhard Weiss
• Better Never to Have Been
• The Second Sexism
• The Human Predicament
• Selected Papers
• Selected Newspaper & Web Articles
• Affirmative Action
• Antiretrovirals
• Victims of Violence
• Danish Cartoons
• Elisa Galgut
• Jack Ritchie
• Academic papers
• Other writing
• Testimony and submissions
• Unpublished presentations
• Working papers
• Olerato Mogomotsi
• Dean Chapman
• Marchelle Erasmus
• Lara Davison
• Introduction to Tutoring
• Tutor Applications
• Conditions of Service
• Introducing the Philosophy Society
• Next Meeting
• Twenty-five years of the UCT Philosophy Society
• Why was the UCT Philosophy Society started?
• In the Beginning
• A Memorable Meeting
• An Interregnum
• Seminars Overview
• Guidelines for Speakers
• Past Seminars
• Events Overview
• Introduction to the Programme
• Past Programmes
• Next Programme
• Student Feedback
• Conferences
• Annual Awards
• Book Launches
• Humanities PPE Colloquium
• News Archive
• Old News Archive

Because there are fewer ways to produce good work than there are to produce bad work, it is easier to stipulate the criteria for a First Class essay than it is to stipulate the criteria for essays that do not meet this high standard. 

Because different essays may combine different strengths and weaknesses, these have to be weighed against one another. An essay that is very good in one regard and only competent in another may merit an overall assessment of “good”.

First (75%) An excellent essay: Clearly written, well-argued answer to the question, and originally presented.

80 to 85% for essays that are outstanding. Such essays demonstrate unusual sophistication or originality. (Relatively rare.)

90% for brilliant essays. Such essays constitute publishable work. (Extremely rare, if ever.)

Upper Second (70% to 74%) A very good essay: Possesses most of the attributes of a First Class essay, but is sufficiently deficient either in clarity, the quality of argument or the originality of presentation not quite to deserve a First.

74% for essays that very narrowly miss a First. 

72% for comfortable Upper Seconds.

70% for essays that barely meet the standards of an Upper Second. 

Lower Second (60% to 69%) A good essay: Demonstrates a good understanding of the material, is a reasonably well-argued answer to the question and demonstrates some originality in presentation. 

69% for essays that very narrowly miss an Upper Second

65% for comfortable Lower Seconds.

60% for essays that barely meet the standards of a Lower Second. 

Third (50% to 59%) A competent essay: Demonstrates a passable understanding of the material and a minimally competent argument. May often lack originality of structure (but cannot be so bad as to constitute plagiarism). 

59% for essays that very narrowly miss a Lower Second

55% for comfortable Thirds.

50% for essays that barely meet the standards of a Third.

Fail (<50%) An incompetent essay: Does not demonstrate a passable understanding of the material or a minimally competent argument, or is irrelevant.

45% to 47% for essays that approximate a pass. 

5% to 44% for failing essays with fewer or more redeeming features

0% for essays that are either plagiarised or without any redeeming features.