Marking Criteria/Grade Descriptors in the Faculty of Arts
THEOLOGY & RELIGIOUS STUDIES
Throughout the document, references to spelling errors and, in some cases, grammar and
expression, do not apply to students who have been assessed as dyslexic.
The Department uses the University's common scale of marks. Most assessed work for the
department is initially graded 'judgmentally'. The following is a guide to what those who mark your
essays and examinations are looking for when they assign a particular grade. Each category
given below covers a range of marks. A given piece of work may not fall neatly into these
categories. Excellence in one area may compensate for a lower standard elsewhere but, by the
same token, particularly poor presentation, for instance, may pull down an otherwise good mark.
Marks ending in the figures 9, 0 or 1 are genuinely on the borderline between two classes (eg 59 is
borderline 2.2/2.1) but will usually be deemed to be of the higher class.
In assessed coursework, marks will be deducted for poor spelling and grammar, and for
inadequate or inconsistent referencing.
In assessing work written under examination conditions, allowance may be made for less detailed
references to sources than would be expected in course work and for minor errors of grammar and
spelling which, in course work, would be caught at the proofreading stage.
Honours
Class
1st
Exceptional
Excellent
High
Middle
Low
Marginal
Borderline
Excellent 1st
1st
High
Middle
1st
Low
Marginal
Mark
89-90
87-88
85-86
83-84
82
79-81
77-78
75-76
73-74
72
Borderline
1st
69-71
2:1
High
67-68
2:1
Middle
65-66
Criteria
Excellent across the board in content, structure, style and presentation.
Clear evidence of wide knowledge and judicious use of primary and
secondary literature, analytic ability and independent critical thought. An
original and well grounded approach which at the top of the mark scale will
be near publishable standard. Exciting to read.
Excellent in more than one of content, structure, style and presentation,
and a superior standard elsewhere. Clear evidence of wide knowledge
and judicious use of primary and secondary literature, analytic ability and
independent critical thought. An original and well grounded approach.
Mostly exciting to read.
Excellent in one of content, structure, style and presentation, and a
superior standard elsewhere. Clear evidence of wide knowledge and
judicious use of primary and secondary literature, analytic ability and
independent critical thought. Evidence of originality. Usually exciting to
read.
Superior across the board in content, structure, style and presentation.
Evidence of knowledge and judicious use of primary and secondary
literature, of analytic ability and independent critical thought. Interesting to
read.
Superior in more than one of content, structure, style and presentation,
and competent elsewhere. Evidence of knowledge and use of primary and
secondary literature, of analytic ability and some independent critical
thought. Mostly interesting to read.
Marking Criteria/Grade Descriptors in the Faculty of Arts
THEOLOGY & RELIGIOUS STUDIES
2:1
Low
Marginal
Borderline
2:1
2:2
High
63-64
62
59-61
57-58
2:2
Middle
55-56
2:2
Low
Marginal
53-54
52
Borderline
2:2
3rd
High
3rd
Middle
3rd
Low
Marginal
Borderline
3rd
Bare Pass
Fail
Marginal
Moderate
Clear Fail
Low
Borderline
Bad Fail
Bad Fail
Marginal
Bad
Very Bad
Disastrous
Absolute
Superior in one of content, style and presentation and competent
elsewhere. Evidence of knowledge and use of some primary and
secondary sources, of some analytic ability and attempts at independent
critical thought. Usually interesting to read.
Competent in content, structure, style and presentation. Evidence of
some reading and analytic ability, but often confined to standard texts.
Lacking in independent thought but shows a basic grasp of the arguments
and concepts. Readable.
Competent in more than one of content, structure, style and presentation
and adequate elsewhere. Generally relevant to the topic but often
confined to lecture notes or with limited use of wider reading. Mostly
readable.
Competent in one of content, structure, style and presentation and
adequate elsewhere. May include some irrelevant or poorly expressed
material, but still conveys overall grasp of the question posed. Usually
readable.
49-51
47-48
45-46
43-44
42
41
40
38-39
36-37
34-35
32-33
29-31
28
26-27
24-25
22-23
20-21
Adequate in content, structure, style and presentation. In places, may
show weak grasp of concepts or arguments and contain irrelevancies and
inaccuracies, with little ability to introduce wider reading. May take effort to
read.
Adequate in more than one of content, structure, style and presentation.
May show uncertain grasp of some key concepts and contain some
irrelevancies or errors, but still addresses question. Takes effort to read.
Attempts to address question but often shows uncertainty or inaccuracy
about key concepts and may contain more serious errors or irrelevancies.
Takes considerable effort to read.
Inadequate in content, structure, style and presentation but shows some
attempt to address the question. Let down by lack of content or of
sustained argument. There may be significant irrelevance and inaccuracy.
Often difficult to read.
Little grasp of the topic. May be excessively brief, or consist of irrelevant,
poorly expressed material often with major grammatical and other errors.
A chore to read.
Little or no grasp of the topic usually with systemic difficulties in coherent
expression. What content can be gleaned may gain a few marks, but the
question remains unanswered. At least some serious attempt can be
argued.
A mark of 20 is the lowest for a serious attempt at a piece of work.
A mark of 0 may be recorded if there is no serious attempt to address the requirements of the
assessment.
October 2004