The following criteria have been applied in marking. The sets listed should be regarded as general indicators.

86% An exceptional performance in all of the criteria in 76-85% 76-85% Outstanding understanding of material with extensive references to literature and examples including information and ideas not mentioned in lectures or on, reading lists. Very well argued, written and structured, and highly stimulating. Shows a mastery of facts and concepts. Displays deep insight, logic, and considerable originality. Clear evidence of very extensive independent study and independent thinking. 70-75% Excellent understanding of material with clear references to relevant literature and examples including information and ideas not mentioned in lectures or on reading lists. Well argued, well written and structured. Factually and conceptually accurate. Displays insight, logic and originality. Signs of independent study and independent thinking. 60-69% Very good understanding of material with clear references to relevant literature and examples, including some information not mentioned in lectures. Sound arguments, well developed and detailed. Competently written with a good structure. A good introduction and conclusion. Factually and conceptually sound. Displays some insight and some logic, and some originality. 50-59% Good understanding of material with a few references to relevant literature and examples largely gleaned from information and ideas mentioned in lectures. Fair arguments showing some development and detail. Moderately well written with some structure. Fair grasp of facts and concepts. Displays occasional signs of insight, logic, originality and independence of thought. 40-49% Fair understanding of material acceptable at undergraduate-degree standard with some knowledge of relevant information and ideas gleaned almost entirely from lectures. Some basic development of arguments with a little detail. Working and structure adequate. Basic grasp of facts and concepts. 35-39% Poor understanding and knowledge of material. An adequate approach to a question. Arguments weak or poorly sustained. Poorly written and unstructured. Poor spelling and grammar. Factual and conceptual inaccuracies. 20-34% An erroneous, irrelevant and muddled approach to the question. Does not argue a case. Very badly written and unstructured. Poor spelling and grammar. Virtually no knowledge of relevant material. Factually and conceptually weak. 10-19% The same shortcomings as 20-34% criteria but also deficient in quantity. 1-9% No more than a few sentences. Failure to address the question sufficiently or entirely irrelevant. 0% Non-submission.