CONTENTS | NEXT PAGE
 

Degree Class	%	Criteria
I	90-100	Report organised and presented appropriately, clearly, succinctly and professionally; could be published with only minor corrections. Excellent evaluation of relevant (and recent) literature and clear statement of aims. References correctly presented. Information can be grasped at a glance, with no duplication.
I	80-89	As above but a few corrections, deletions and amendments would be needed before publication. Style of writing clear.
I	70-79	Clear and easy to read, but not necessarily publishable. Presentation first class but with occasional repetition. Some inadequacies of style, leading to occasional obscurities.
II.1	60-69	Good, logical presentation; writing style generally good, but some paragraphs obscure. Some repetition of both information and remarks. Can be read with pleasure and interest.
II.2	50-59	Adequate presentation, but style not very good. Rather poor choice of illustrations, possibly too few or too many, too small too complex, etc. Graphs and tables not very well laid out. Repetition of ideas and information.
III	40-49	Presentation with many inadequacies e.g. graphs with bad scales, too many points on a graph, illustrations not well chosen style unclear, poor organisation of references, etc. But overall impression satisfactory and gives a reasonable knowledge of the major findings of the project.
Fail	30-39	Presentation with many inadequacies, difficult to ascertain all that has been discovered. However, a majority of the report is reasonably understandable.
Fail	15-29	Inadequate presentation. Information mixed up and not sensibly organised. Painful reading and, at the end, little clear idea of the major findings of the investigation.
Fail	0-14	Very poor presentation. Information unorganised into any logically apparent sequence. Findings incoherent.

Compensation applies between criteria. Thus good style in written text could compensate to some extent for poor use of illustrations. Where the quantity of work presented is inadequate, the presentation mark will be scaled down accordingly.

Degree Class	%	Criteria
I	90-100	Outstanding handling of data, innovative and original, with maximum information obtained from results, whether quantitative or otherwise, and implications assessed in the light both of other, published work and of the limitations of experimental procedures used. Where appropriate, full statistical treatment employed. Awareness of how the work might develop.
I	80-89	As above but with a few omissions in both treatment and interpretation of information. Not reading too much into the information available.
I	70-79	Handling of own information and literature first class for the most part, but just occasionally reading more into the data than statistics and good judgement would warrant.
II.1	60-69	On the whole data and literature handled well, though the full implications of all the data not appreciated, and some over-enthusiastically interpreted. Some omission of statistical treatments.
II.2	50-59	As II.1 but some of the data handled in the wrong way. Literature use incomplete.
III	40-49	Handling of results showing many inadequacies, e.g. information incorrectly interpreted, wrong statistical procedures etc. But, on the whole, data comprehensibly presented. Little awareness of literature or of how the work might develop.
Fail	30-39	Handling of results shows many inadequacies and, a sizeable proportion of the data wrongly interpreted. Literature awareness minimal.
Fail	15-29	Inadequate handling of most results in every way. The majority of the data wrongly interpreted. No literature awareness.
Fail	0-14	Inadequate handling of results in every way. All/nearly all data wrongly interpreted, or left un-interpreted. No literature awareness.

Compensation applies between criteria. Thus a very good use of literature could to some extent compensate for a poor statistical analysis. Where the quantity of work presented is inadequate, the interpretation mark will be scaled down accordingly.

CONTENTS | NEXT PAGE