Marking Scheme for postgraduate funding for 2015 entry
INTRODUCTION
Following feedback from stakeholders in 2013, the marking instructions for 2014 entry onwards have been
updated and the major postgraduate funding bodies at Cambridge continue to work together to provide an
integrated system for departmental input into funding decisions.
The marking scheme and process will be used for applicants applying to the following funding bodies for
2015 entry:
 Gates Cambridge Scholarships
All postgraduates from outside the UK
 Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and Cambridge Overseas Trust
All postgraduates from outside the EU
 Cambridge International Scholarship Scheme (CISS)
Overseas PhD applicants only
 Cambridge Home and European Scholarship Scheme (CHESS)
UK+ EU PhD and ‘research track’ Masters
The data from departments is also shared with Colleges and other central University funding bodies (e.g.
Hershel Smith, Kurt Hahn, CT Taylor, Fund, Jebb Fund, Sims Fund, Robert Gardiner Memorial Scholarships
and the Schiff Studentship).
THE MARKING SCHEME
The marking scheme consists of a scale 1-10 (1 being lowest, 10 being highest) to be applied across two or
three academic components:
1. Academic Record (all applicants)
2. References (all applicants)
3. Research Potential (PhD applicants only)
These components create an overall score for each applicant. Descriptors are provided for the three
assessment components in the attached Marking Scheme template. There is also scope to add comments –
these are required at the higher level, and where a non-standard weighting is suggested across the three
component scores above.
The following provides detailed guidance on how to apply the criteria when assessing/scoring applications:
[NB: MPhil is used below as an abbreviation for one-year courses]
a. Academic Record (mark 1-10) - evidence from academic transcripts/marks (including marks from current
courses).
1. Some applicants may have more than one degree result. While all the available evidence should be
considered, the mark can be weighted towards the most relevant degree. For international degrees, the
Guide to International Qualifications 2012 (Graduate Admissions office) is attached – it may be necessary to
look at individual course marks if the overall ‘degree class’ is not informative.
2. Departments will naturally take into account the standing/quality of the institution where applicants
have been studying. The guide (see above) to the equivalence of international qualifications to those from
the United Kingdom will be of assistance, along with knowledge/expertise held within departments. Some
funding bodies are keen to identify outstanding applicants with the potential to thrive at Cambridge who
may not have had the opportunity to study at one of the top-ranked universities in the world. Where
departments identify such an applicant they can place greater weight on the information from the
References and the Research Potential (if appropriate) categories when providing the Overall score. In such
cases it is essential that the comments include an explanation of how the Overall score was determined.
b. References (mark 1-10) - evidence from references (including at least one reference from an academic
able to comment from knowledge about academic performance).
Again, departments will naturally take into account the standing/quality of the institution where applicants
for funding have been studying, whilst recognising that we are looking for potential.
c. Research Potential (mark 1-10) - departments may use a range of evidence.
1. The quality of the PhD research proposal will be useful in the case of applicants from the Arts and Social
Sciences where an applicant-led proposal is the norm. Whereas, in some Natural Sciences, information
from research internships/projects, sometimes with associated journal publications, may provide evidence
of research potential. In either case, evidence may include:
o research proposal
o research experience - in related or relevant fields/settings
o interview or other departmental engagement
o Other evidence relevant to the department's consideration of research potential (e.g. written work).
2. MPhil and other one-year course applicants will often not be in a position to provide a developed
research proposal and, in such cases, departments will rely primarily on assessment of the academic record
and information included in the references. The ‘Research Potential’ component has been removed from
the mark sheet for MPhil applicants for funding, but departments may include any relevant information in
the comments section. A bonus mark can be awarded for strong research potential in the overall score as
long as the overall score does not exceed 20.
d. Overall Assessment
PhD (mark between 3 and 30) – add scores a, b and c to reach Overall score (max = 30)
MPhil (mark between 2 and 20) – add scores a and b to reach Overall score (max = 20)
1. PhDs: In a straightforward case, the Overall score should be the sum of the three component marks
above, (e.g. Academic Record 7 + References 7 + Research Potential 8 = Overall score 22). However, in
some cases the straight sum may not adequately represent an applicant in the rank order against other
applicants, or, the department may wish to weight one element (e.g. Research Potential) more strongly
than the other two. In such cases, ‘Special Case’ must be flagged.
Whilst the scoring system revolves around academic criteria, it may be necessary to finesse interpretation
of the scoring system depending on the range of skills being considered. For example, in Music, we are
aware that professional experience and expertise will be relevant to ranking for the PhD in Composition.
Otherwise there is opportunity to use the ‘ extra mark’ to signify particular experience or expertise which
adds to the overall assessment of the candidate's ranking.
2. MPhils: In a straightforward case, the Overall score should be the sum of the two component marks
above, e.g. Academic Record 7 + References 7 = Overall score 14. However, in some cases the straight sum
may not adequately represent an applicant in the rank order against other applicants, or, the department
may wish to weight one element more strongly than the other and give a bonus mark where appropriate.
(i.e. adjust the overall score upwards by 1 mark). In such cases, ‘Special Case’ must be flagged.
If a ‘Special Case’ is to be made to adjust the Overall score, departments will need to note this in the on-line
form and provide an explanation of any departure from the straight sum of the component scores in the
comments section. Overall scores cannot exceed the maximum: PhD 30, MPhil 20.
e. Comments [1,000 characters]
PhDs
1. For overall scores of 26 or above, comments are required. Of particular importance are comments that
add ‘extra value’ to the component scores or explain the circumstances leading to an Overall score that is
not the straight sum of the individual component scores.
2. For overall scores of less than 26, comments are not compulsory but can be provided where they add
‘extra value’ to the component scores or explain a ‘special case’.
MPhils
1. For overall scores of 17 or above, comments are required. Of particular importance are comments that
add ‘extra value’ to the component scores or explain the circumstances leading to an Overall score that is
not the straight sum of the individual component scores.
2. For overall scores of less than 17, comments are not compulsory but can be provided where they add
‘extra value’ to the component scores or explain a bonus mark