a) | The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a credit-weighted mean of all counting marks, as specified in each individual Classification Scheme. | |
b) | Where a Classification Scheme includes multiple years of study, the credit-weighted Year Mean must be calculated first. Each Year Mean must then be weighted according to the Classification Scheme, and the Final Weighted Mark must then be calculated from the mean of weighted Year Means. | |
c) | The Final Weighted Mark must be rounded to 2 decimal places. |
2. | On programmes operating the , the Classification must be determined from the number of module credits falling in each Classification Band. |
1. | On Undergraduate programmes, the ‘Classification Year Mean’ is the credit-weighted average of only those module marks which count towards the classification in a single year of study. It is distinct from the ‘Progression Year Mean’ (see ) which is a mean of all module marks in a year of study. |
2. | The Classification Year Mean is calculated as follows: |
a) | The ‘counting’ marks are identified (e.g. students might drop their worst 30 credits in Year 1, so only 90 credits ‘count’). | |
b) | Each counting mark is given a weighting according to its credit value. | |
c) | The credit-weighted counting marks are averaged to create the ‘Year Mean’ for each year of study. | |
d) | Each Year Mean is given a weighting (e.g. Year 1: 1, Year 2: 3, Year 3: 5). | |
e) | The weighted Year Means are averaged to give the ‘Final Weighted Mark’. | |
f) | The Final Weighted Mark determines the Classification awarded. |
1. | Marks achieved for reassessed modules must be weighted according to the year in which the module was first attempted. |
2. | Marks achieved for substitute modules must be weighted according to the year in which the module was first attempted. |
3. | Marks achieved for modules deferred due to Extenuating Circumstances must be weighted according to the year in which the student was first registered on the module. |
1. | Credits awarded via the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) from any institution other than UCL must be counted as part of the qualification requirements but must be excluded from the calculation of the Classification. |
2. | Credits accrued at UCL and awarded via the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) must be counted as part of the qualification requirements and included in the calculation of the Classification. |
3. | At the time of admission with RPL, the student should be advised of the number of credits which they are required to pass in order to be eligible for an Award, and the algorithm which will be used to calculate their Classification. |
4. | The application procedures for the Recognition of Prior Learning are defined in . |
1. | , a qualification may be awarded on a Pass/Fail basis i.e. without a Classification. This must be clearly defined in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool. |
1. | Where a programme includes an Integrated Study Abroad or Placement Year or Module, the Classification must be calculated using the standard Classification Schemes below. |
2. | Where a programme includes an Additional/ Extra-mural Study Abroad or Placement Year or Module, the following rules must be applied when determining the Classification: |
a) | Additional/ Extra-mural Study Abroad or Placement Years must be weighted at 0 in the Classification. | |
b) | Additional/ Extra-mural Study Abroad or Placement Modules must be weighted at 0 in the Classification. | |
c) | Where a programme includes a Study Abroad or Placement Project Module, the Study Abroad or Placement Year AND the Project Module must be weighted at 0 in the Classification. | |
d) | Where an Undergraduate Additional/ Extra-mural Study Abroad or Placement Year is in the Final Year, the Penultimate Year must be treated as the ‘Final Year’ in the determination of the classification. |
1. | , a UCL programme delivered under an academic partnership agreement may operate an adjusted classification scheme to take account of the learning undertaken at the partner institution. Further details can be found in . Adjusted classification schemes must be included in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool and clearly explained in the Student Handbook or equivalent. |
1. | A student who meets the Award Requirements for a programme of study leading to a OR a should be awarded a Pass, Merit or Distinction Classification. |
a) | A Cert HE or Dip HE Interim Qualification is not eligible for a Classification (see ). |
2. | The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: |
: Year 1: Best 90 credits, weighted at 1.
Year 1: Best 90 credits, weighted at 1 | |
3. | The following rules must be used to determine the Classification: |
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50% or
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50% or
Meets the Award Requirements. |
7.3.1 general principles .
1. | A student who meets the Award Requirements for an Honours Degree should be awarded an Honours Classification. |
a) | Some Undergraduate qualifications (e.g. the MBBS) do not include a Classification due to the requirements of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs). |
2. | All programmes should operate Classification Scheme A. |
a) | , where a Professional Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) places restrictions on the operation of Condonement, a programme may instead operate Classification Scheme B or C. The scheme in use must be clearly indicated in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool. | |
b) | , Non-modular Programmes may instead operate one of the Classification Schemes defined in . The scheme must be clearly indicated in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool. |
1. | The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: |
Year 1: Best 90 credits, weighted at 1
Year 1: Best 90 credits, weighted at 1
Year 1: All 120 credits.
All 120 credits in the iBSc Year (Year 3 of the MBBS), Weighted at 1.
All 120 credits, Weighted at 1. |
1. | The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: |
Year 1: All 120 credits, weighted at 1
Year 1: All 120 credits, weighted at 1 |
1. | The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: |
Year 1: Weighted at 0
Year 1: Weighted at 0 |
1. | For all Honours Degree Classification Schemes, the following rules must be used to determine the Classification: |
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50% or
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50% or
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 49.50% or
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 40.00%. | |
2. | Where a Study Abroad or Placement Year is in the Final Year, the Penultimate Year must be treated as the ‘Final Year’ in the determination of the classification. See . |
1. | A student who meets the Award Requirements for a programme of study leading to a Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma should be awarded a Pass, Merit or Distinction Classification. |
a) | Where a Grad Cert Interim Qualification is an Advertised Outcome from a programme of study, students are eligible for a Classification. Where an Interim Qualification is an Advertised Outcome, students are eligible for a Classification (see ). | |
b) | Some Graduate qualifications may not include a Classification due to the requirements of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs). |
2. | On programmes operating the Numeric Marking Scale, the Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a credit-weighted mean of all module marks, rounded to 2 decimal places. |
3. | On programmes operating the Letter Grade Marking Scale, the Classification must be calculated using all credit-weighted module grades. |
4. | The following rules must be used to determine the Classification: |
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50% or
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50% or
Meets the Award Requirements.
A Grade A in at least two thirds of the credits.
A Grade greater than or equal to B in at least two thirds of the credits.
Meets the Award Requirements. |
1. | A student who meets the Award Requirements for a programme of study leading to a Postgraduate Certificate, Postgraduate Diploma or Taught Masters Degree should be awarded a Pass, Merit or Distinction Classification. |
a) | Where a PG Cert or PG Dip Interim Qualification is an Advertised Outcome from a programme of study, students are eligible for a Classification. Where an Interim Qualification is an Advertised Outcome, students are eligible for a Classification (see ). | |
b) | Some Postgraduate qualifications (e.g. the Postgraduate Certificate in Education) do not include a Classification due to the requirements of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs). |
2. | All programmes should operate the main UCL Classification Scheme defined in this section. |
a) | , non-modular programmes may instead operate one of the Classification Schemes defined in . The scheme must be clearly indicated in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool. |
3. | On programmes operating the Numeric Marking Scale, the Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a credit-weighted mean of all module marks, rounded to 2 decimal places. |
4. | On programmes operating the Letter Grade Marking Scale, the Classification must be calculated using all credit-weighted module grades. |
5. | The following rules must be used to determine the Classification: |
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50% or
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50% or
Meets the Award Requirements
A Grade A in at least two thirds of the credits.
A Grade greater than or equal to B in at least two thirds of the credits.
Meets the Award Requirements. |
1. | A student who meets the Award Requirements for a programme of study leading to a Masters by Research Degree (MRes) must be awarded a Pass, Merit or Distinction Classification. |
2. | On programmes operating the , the Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a credit-weighted mean of all module marks, rounded to 2 decimal places. |
3. | On programmes operating the , the Classification must be calculated using all credit-weighted module grades. |
4. | The following rules must be used to determine the Classification: |
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50% or
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50% or
Meets the Award Requirements.
A Grade A in at least two thirds of the credits which must include the Dissertation.
A Grade greater than or equal to B in at least two thirds of the credits which must include the Dissertation.
Meets the Award Requirements. |
7.7.1 ba (hons) english .
1. | The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following ten, equally-weighted marks: |
a) | 8 course units in Years 2 and 3, AND | |
b) | The Research Essay mark, AND | |
c) | The Course Assessment mark. |
2. | The Honours Classification must be determined using the following rules: |
3 marks above 69 and numerical aggregate of at least 666.
6 marks above 59 and numerical aggregate of at least 590.
8 marks above 49 and numerical aggregate of at least 520.
9 marks above 39 and numerical aggregate of at least 460. | |
3. | The work of candidates who meet one but not both of the criteria for any given class must be referred to the External Examiner for review. The work of candidates who are close to both of the criteria for any given class but fulfil neither may be referred to the External Examiner for review. Please see for further details. |
1. | The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a weighted mean of the following marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: |
a) | History and Theory of Art Coursework in Year 2, weighted at 10%, AND | |
b) | History and Theory of Art Independent Study in Year 3, weighted at 10%, AND | |
c) | Degree Exhibition in Year 4, weighted at 80%. |
2. | The mark/s from the Additional Study is/are used as a moderator in borderline cases. |
3. | The Honours Classification must be determined using the standard rules in . |
1. | The Final Weighted Mark must be based on performance in the final year Studio Work, weighted at 100%. |
2. | Critical Studies is marked Pass/Fail and subsumed into the final mark for Studio Work. |
3. | The Honours Classification must be determined using the following rules: |
A Final Mark greater than or equal to 70.00%.
A Final Mark greater than or equal to 60.00%.
A Final Mark greater than or equal to 50.00%.
A Final Mark greater than or equal to 40.00%. | |
4. | As the Classification is based on one mark, Borderline Criteria do not apply. |
1. | The MBBS does not include an Honours Classification, and the regulations in do not apply to this programme. |
2. | The iBSc does include an Honours Classification and is subject to the standard UCL regulations in . |
1. | The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a weighted mean of the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: |
a) | History and Theory of Art Spring Course Essay in Year 1, weighted at 5%, AND | |
b) | History and Theory of Art Research Essay in Year 1, weighted at 5%, AND | |
c) | History and Theory of Art Report in Year 2, weighted at 15%, AND | |
d) | Studio work in Year 2, weighted at 75%. |
2. | The Classification must be determined using the standard rules in . |
1. | The Final Weighted Mark must be based on performance in the Studio Work in Year 2, weighted at 100%. |
2. | Critical Studies is marked Pass/Fail and subsumed into the final mark for Studio Work. |
3. | The Classification must be determined using the following rules: |
A Final Mark greater than or equal to 70.00%.
A Final Mark greater than or equal to 60.00%.
A Final Mark greater than or equal to 50.00%. | |
4. | As the Classification is based on one mark, Borderline Criteria do not apply. |
Further information and advice for students about assessment is available on the Examinations & Awards webpages .
A guide to changes to the regulations are available from the Recent Changes page.
Browser does not support script.
We use cookies on this site. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. Close this message Find out more
The text below is an extract from the MSc handbook for students
Each dissertation is independently marked by two examiners; one of these is normally the supervisor. An external examiner moderates the assessment. The examiners may conduct an oral examination if they wish to check the depth of the student's understanding and to ensure that the dissertation is the student's own work. Students must obtain a pass grade on the dissertation to pass the MSc degree. The examiners give up to 100 points where the points translate to the following categories:
85 − 100: An exceptionally high level of understanding and outstanding research potential.
70 − 84.99: Very high competence and excellent research potential.
60 − 69.99: Evidence of some creativity and independence of thought.
50 − 59.99: Sound understanding of the literature, but lack of accuracy or originality.
0 − 49.99: Insufficient or no understanding of the topic, poor quality of work.
The points are given according to the following guidelines:
Knowledge of subject (25)
21 − 25: Deep understanding and near-comprehensive knowledge.
18 − 20: Deep understanding.
15 − 17: Very good understanding.
12 − 14: Sound knowledge of relevant information.
10 − 11: Basic understanding of the main issues.
0 − 9: Little or no understanding of the main issues.
Organisation of material (25)
21 − 25: Of publishable quality.
18 − 20: Arguments clearly constructed; material very well-organised.
15 − 17: Well-organised; aims met with no significant errors or omissions.
12 − 14: Coherent and competent organisation.
10 − 11: Lack of clarity in written presentation or aims only partially met.
6 − 9: Major flaws in arguments; aims of project not met.
0 − 5: Arguments are missing/deficient. Disorganised or fragmentary.
Originality, interpretation and analysis (20)
17 − 20: Significant originality in the interpretation and/or analysis; project aims challenging.
14 − 16: Some originality; evidence of excellent analytical and problem- solving skills.
12 − 13: Good attempt to interpret and analyse existing literature.
10 − 11: Minor flaws in interpretation/analysis of existing literature.
5 − 9: Poor interpretation/analysis or project aims too simple.
0 − 4: Little or no interpretation or analysis; project aims trivial.
Evidence of reading (10)
8 − 10: Independent reading including research papers.
6 − 7: Good use of outside reading.
4 − 5: Some evidence of outside reading.
0 − 3: Little or no evidence of outside reading.
Bibliography and referencing (10)
9 − 10: Of publishable quality.
7 − 8: Good referencing and bibliography.
5 − 6: Either poor bibliography or poor referencing.
3 − 4: Poor bibliography and little or no referencing.
0 − 2: No bibliography and little or no referencing.
Style, spelling, punctuation and grammar (10)
9 − 10: Incisive and fluent, no errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.
7 − 8: Very minor errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.
4 − 6: Some errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.
0 − 3: Many errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.
Did you find the information you were looking for? Is there a broken link or content that needs updating? Let us know so we can improve the page.
Note: If you need further information or have a question that cannot be satisfied by this page, please call our switchboard on +44 (0)1784 434455.
This window will close when you submit your comment.
University College Birmingham places great importance on ensuring that all students have an equal opportunity to do well. There is a number of practices in place to support this.
Throughout your programme of study UCB will provide opportunity for you to develop your academic skills. Helping you to study section of this handbook provides details of support available to students in developing academic practice.
Cheating, collusion and plagiarism are types of Academic Misconduct. These are some of the names used for ways in which a student may present as their own, work completed, or written by someone else. Academic Misconduct is taken very seriously by University College Birmingham.
University College Birmingham's Code of Practice on Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct details the process by which matters of Academic Misconduct are investigated and the penalties that may be applied. University College Birmingham's disciplinary procedures relating to assessment offences are shown in the General Student Regulations .
The Guild of Students are available to support students with queries regarding Academic Integrity and Misconduct.
Before assignments are given to students, they are subject to an internal moderation process which ensures they are at an appropriate level, allow students to achieve the learning outcomes and have appropriate grading criteria in place. All assessments are marked in line with these criteria and then grades are checked by a moderator to make sure they are consistent and fairly awarded. This moderating of grades is then also looked at by an external examiner to ensure appropriate grades are awarded. The Assessment and Moderation Cycle shows you the process and considerations lecturers follow when assessing your work. All marks are provisional and may go up or down until the Board of Examiners has been confirmed and published final marks.
Module lecturers, tutors and Year Managers from each course team are the staff who know each student and their work best. They all attend the exam boards at which their students’ work is considered. The relevant Head of Department will also attend the board which is Chaired by the Executive Dean of the School or their nominee.
The Examinations Unit records all decisions made ready to publish. UCB Registry also attend every Board of Examiners. Their role is to ensure that decisions are made in line with our Assessment Regulations and that practices are consistent across all exam boards.
At the Board of Examiners meeting for students due to be awarded, one or more External Examiner will usually participate. External Examiners are experienced professionals, often senior teaching figures from other HE institutions or occasionally senior figures from industry. They are chosen for their expert knowledge of your course’s area of study. Their role is to monitor the quality of teaching and on your course and ensure that it is compatible with national standards. Further information on the role of External Examiners and an External Examiner Guide for Students are available.
University College Birmingham uses a standard system relating to feedback and grading of assessed work on Higher Education (HE) courses.
The system is designed to:
Clarify and reinforce to students and lecturers the features and expectations of work at a given level on Higher Education courses;
Clarify the features and expectations of work characteristic to a range of marks;
Ensure consistency and transparency in terms of the approach to grading of HE work across the University’s course portfolio;
Foster and promote constructive feedback to students.
The criteria show the generally sought after features of student work at each level of study on HE courses within a range of marks.
The criteria have been benchmarked against national standards.
Please find the HE Generic Grading Criteria below:
Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7
The criteria under each category have been written to reflect the change of emphasis that occurs as you progress between levels of study. For certain modules and assessment tasks, specially devised feedback sheets are used. Your lecturer will advise you on the basis by which you are being assessed. Specialist criteria may apply to certain modules due to their specific technical nature.
Undergraduates - Monitoring Your Progress and Classifications
For Undergraduate students, shortly after you receive assessment feedback from your module lecturer, provisional marks are relayed to the Examinations Unit and updated in the My Results page on the Student Dashboard or U@UCB app. This information will enable you to track your progress on all assessments you have submitted.
Grading Undergraduate Work
All student work is awarded a percentage mark. For undergraduate courses, the pass mark is 40%. Keeping track of the marks you receive will help you to gauge your performance.
Degree classifications, the final grade for your degree overall are as follows:
You may be more familiar with the shortened name shown in brackets above.
For BA and BSc degrees your final classification is calculated using a combination of the weighted average of your marks at level 5 and level 6, the number of credits achieved and the number of credits achieved at a particular level. The exact combination of these may vary depending on which year you started your degree. Full details can be found in the Academic Regulations Part 2: Assessment, Progression and Award 1.3.1. This document explains whether your final award is classified and if it is, how the final classification is calculated.
In very general terms
Foundation Degrees
A foundation degree is unclassified, pass only. However, it may be useful to think in terms of the level you are working at in the following way. Particularly if you intend to top-up to a Bachelor's degree in the future.
In general terms for classified Foundation Degrees
Grade Calculator
You can also use the Grade Calculator to help you manage your performance by working out your weighted average for a level of study or to calculate the marks need to pass a module based on the weighting of the individual assessments. This is not a tool for calculating your final classification, but can be used to monitor your performance and provide an indication of the level that you are working at.
University College Birmingham is keen to develop assessment feedback mechanisms to guide you towards a positive learning experience. As such, awareness of the criteria should help you raise your grading profile. Consistent use of the generic grading criteria across your assessments should mean that the level of work that is expected of you should become clearer over time. You will soon become very familiar with the criteria.
You can also use the generic grading criteria to self-reflect on your attainment by reviewing the criteria for higher grades on the sheet against your own performance. Additionally, the generic grading criteria are designed to encourage lecturers to fully consider the attributes of your presented work. Attributes related to both academic and professional features are assessed.
As the grading criteria are written in a common format across each level of study, you should be able to see more clearly how expectations change as you move from one level to the next through your course. For all assessment, you will receive a % mark which will have been subject to internal procedures and remains a provisional mark until the conclusion of the External Examination Board.
Students on Higher Education courses are assessed at various ‘levels’ during their course. It is now common practice to refer to ‘level of study’ rather than ‘year of study’. This is because students have various modes of attendance - for example, part-time courses take more years to complete than full-time courses. Some courses include a 48-week work placement and thus take longer to complete.
The various levels of study are shown below:
Level P (Progression): This is foundation year level, i.e. preparing students to enter HE courses at level 4.
Level 4 (Certificate Level): This is generally year one of full-time HE courses.
Level 5 (Foundation/Diploma Level): This is generally the second year of full-time HE courses (or the second/third years of courses which include a 48-week work placement).
Level 6 (Honours Level): This is the final stage of undergraduate degree work. Generally the third year of undergraduate degree courses (or the fourth year of courses that include a 48 week placement).
Level 7 (Masters Level): This is postgraduate level.
Note: all assignments that you receive should confirm the ‘level’ of work that applies.
Use of Customised Grading Criteria Specific to Individual Assignments and Assessed Seminars
In addition to the use of generic grading criteria, you may undertake assessments where the lecturers issue additional criteria specific to that assessment. Furthermore, some assessments, for example those of a very practical nature, may specify different criteria. However, what is required of you and the grading criteria applicable should ALWAYS be made clear on the assignment.
Your lecturer may direct you to additional formative support or on-site facilities/services which you may find helpful.
Should your assignment require you to work as part of a team, you will receive an individual grade based upon your performance, as well as personalised feedback. The module leader will explain how your individual grade and feedback will be determined.
Assignment word counts and presentation timings should always be observed. Ignoring a word count increases significantly the risk of your work losing marks because it lacked structure, flow, focus and clarity. Timings must be observed for assessed presentations for the same reasons.
Please note that for written assignments, the following are included in the word count:
The following are not part of the word count:
Students can access the examiner’s comments from their examination scripts by contacting [email protected] for a Request to Access Examiners' Comments form.
For postgraduate students shortly after you receive assessment feedback from your module lecturer, provisional marks are relayed to the Examinations Unit and updated in the My Results page on the Student Dashboard or U@UCB app. This information will enable you to track your progress on all assessments you have submitted. Keeping track of the marks you receive will help you to gauge your performance.
Grading on these courses is based on a percentage grading system. The mark for a pass at Masters Level is 50%.
Postgraduate awards are made at Pass, Merit or Distinction. This is calculated based on a combination of the weighted average of the taught programme and the number of credits achieved. Full details of the way that this is calculated can be found in 1.3.2 a and b of the Academic Regulations Part 2: Assessment, Progression and Award .
In general terms for postgraduate degrees
Following meetings of the Boards of Examiners, final results of a student’s assessments will be published on the Student Dashboard . This will show, for each module:
The decision of the Board of Examiners will also be published at the end of each level of study in the same place (at the end of each semester for PT Foundation Degree students). The decision indicates whether a student:
Assessment results are posted on UCB Portal at 12pm on the dates of publication.
Access the Portal
By clicking on the Decision bar, students can access full details of what to do next.
It is each student’s responsibility to check their own results as soon as possible after publication. Details of publications dates can be found on Canvas. Contact the Examinations Unit with any queries.
Canvas Contact the Examination Unit
The number of credits awarded at each stage of study is very important. Each year of study could generate a maximum of 120 credits. Normally, any student failing a module will be required to repeat or re-sit assessment in order to gain the requisite number of credits before progressing. However, there are some circumstances in which progression may be permitted with only 100, or 110 credits.
For undergraduate programmes and the taught programme for postgraduates, students who have achieved fewer than 60 credits within the level of study, will usually be asked to repeat all failed modules and will not usually be offered a further opportunity to resubmit. There may be exceptions to this on programmes subject to PSRB requirements.
Credit is awarded when the learning outcomes for a module are met. This is usually indicated by achieving a pass mark for the module overall (40% at undergraduate level, 50% at postgraduate level). In some cases it may be possible to achieve a pass mark where at least one component of the module is not passed. In this situation credit may not be awarded. Full details can be found in UCB's Academic Regulations Part 2: Assessment, Progression and Award 1.2.1.
For Foundation Degree students an award can be made with 100 credits achieved at Level 4 and 100 credits achieved at Level 5 (this may differ for courses with Must Pass modules). Students should be aware that they must attempt all modules at each level. However, students must achieve a minimum of 200 credits on the Foundation Degree including 100 credits at Level 5 to be considered for admission to the BA or BSc top up year.
For BA or BSc students a minimum of 320 credits must be achieved across the 3 years of the course or 440 credits across 4 years for courses with placement to be considered for an Honours degree. In addition, at least 100 credits must be passed in the final year for a classification to be awarded.
Therefore, it is possible that a BA/BSc student could complete the degree course and pass the dissertation, but only achieve 300 credits and not be awarded an honours degree or classification. By taking resits or repeating study (if required) you give yourself the best opportunity to achieve.
Any undergraduate student with questions about the number of credits they have achieved can contact the Examinations Unit to discuss their situation.
Full details of the credits required to achieve an award can be found in UCB’s Academic Regulations Part 2: Assessment, Progression and Award 1.3 .
Contact The Examination Unit
The following classifications are used to show the overall performance of a student on a BA or BSc course:
Foundation Degrees, Foundation Diplomas and Graduate Certificates/Diplomas are not classified and are awarded as a Pass.
For BA and BSc degrees your final classification is calculated using a combination of the weighted average of your marks at level 5 and level 6, the number of credits achieved and the number of credits achieved at a particular level. The exact combination of these may vary depending on which year you started your degree. Full details can be found in the Academic Regulations Part 2: Assessment, Progression and Award 1.3.1. and in the University’s classification schemes for students enrolling before 2020 and students enrolling in 2020 and onwards. This document explains whether your final award is classified and if it is, how the final classification is calculated.
Classified Foundation Degrees
For students starting the first year of a Foundation Degree in 2020/2021 your final Foundation degree will be awarded as a pass, merit or distinction. The final classification will be calculated based on a weighted average of marks. Full details can be found in the Academic Regulations Part 2: Assessment, Progression and Award 1.3.1. This document explains whether your final award is classified and if it is, how the final classification is calculated.
In order to Progress to Dissertation, a postgraduate student must have achieved a mark of 40% or more in all taught modules and have gained at least 80 credits at Level 7 in modules taken as part of the taught component of the course.
Full details of the credits required to achieve an award and the criteria for the awards at Merit and Distinction can be found in UCB’s Academic Regulations Part 2: Assessment, Progression and Award 1.3 .
Any Postgraduate student with questions about the number of credits they have achieved can contact the Examinations Unit to discuss their situation.
Further information on how degree classifications are calculated is available by making an appointment with your Examinations Officer to discuss your grade profile by emailing [email protected] .
For queries about any information in the section, please contact the [email protected] or the [email protected] or visit us in Room 629 in the Summer Row Campus.
On successful completion of a course, all students are awarded a certificate by the relevant awarding body (eg. UCB or University of Birmingham). This is usually provided at or shortly after Graduation. You will also be provided with a formal record of the modules studied and your marks in the form of an Academic Transcript. This will show details of the awarded studied, qualification awarded and classification, where applicable. Academic Transcripts also detail the total mark achieved for each module studied and the number of credits achieved. Your Personal Tutor can provide, on request, a reference which includes information about placements, prizes or other achievements.
The Examinations Unit normally produces one free transcript for each student at the end their level of study/course. For students completing an programme of study a digital copy of your final Academic Transcript will be published through the University College Birmingham's secure document site Verify , while a hard copy will be posted to the student’s permanent home address. Students who do not receive the hard copy of the academic transcript within 16 weeks of the publication of results can contact the Examinations Unit to request a free replacement transcript. After this 16-week period, if we have not heard from you, the assumption will be made that your transcript has been safely delivered to your address. Students enquiring for transcripts after this 16-week period will have to either place their order through Verify for students who graduated in either 2019 or 2020 or contact the Registry for additional copies of lost/new transcripts. If a student wants a replacement transcript for whatever reason, they must request this by writing to the Registry, completing the Transcript Request Form and making payment of £25. through the Online Payments page of the University College Birmingham website.
If a student requires a letter or transcript to confirm academic progress within the academic year and before final results have been published, the student can contact the Examinations Unit to request an interim transcript. Registry may also be able to provide a letter confirming a student’s current status if required. The Academic Registry and the Examinations Unit are based on the Third Floor of The Link building.
Verify University College Birmingham Online Payments Portal Transcript Request Form
The University is committed to providing our students with a rich and diverse educational experience that will support and shape both their personal and profess…
This page tells you what can happen if you fail a module and also how to apply for Extenuating Circumstances or make an appeal.
From our team of Subject Librarians are qualified Library and Information professionals to our CASE centre open to all students there is a number ways we can help with yo…
The IT support Unit, DICE, Web Developers and AV teams are all located in the ground floor of Camden House.
Within your course, there are different ways in which content is delivered and different ways that you can explore ideas or concepts in depth in your own time through i…
Some assignments, and most examination answers, will be required to be presented in the form of an essay. Here you can find all information on planning, paragraphing and conclud…
Arising where work submitted by a student is not their own, but has been taken from another source.
Placements are administered by a team of Employability Tutors based within hired@UCB on the Ground Floor of the Moss House Campus.
Every year, some students decide that they wish to change their programme of study, and move either to another programme within University College Birmingham.
Come and visit us on one of our open days, where you can find out more about our courses, our facilities and speak to current students and staff.
There are many ways you can contact University College Birmingham, from phone and email to social media.
8 straightforward steps to craft an a-grade dissertation.
By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020
Writing a dissertation or thesis is not a simple task. It takes time, energy and a lot of will power to get you across the finish line. It’s not easy – but it doesn’t necessarily need to be a painful process. If you understand the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis, your research journey will be a lot smoother.
In this post, I’m going to outline the big-picture process of how to write a high-quality dissertation or thesis, without losing your mind along the way. If you’re just starting your research, this post is perfect for you. Alternatively, if you’ve already submitted your proposal, this article which covers how to structure a dissertation might be more helpful.
This probably sounds like a no-brainer, but all too often, students come to us for help with their research and the underlying issue is that they don’t fully understand what a dissertation (or thesis) actually is.
So, what is a dissertation?
At its simplest, a dissertation or thesis is a formal piece of research , reflecting the standard research process . But what is the standard research process, you ask? The research process involves 4 key steps:
In short, the research process is simply about asking and answering questions in a systematic fashion . This probably sounds pretty obvious, but people often think they’ve done “research”, when in fact what they have done is:
If you want to see the perfect example of this in action, look out for the next Facebook post where someone claims they’ve done “research”… All too often, people consider reading a few blog posts to constitute research. Its no surprise then that what they end up with is an opinion piece, not research. Okay, okay – I’ll climb off my soapbox now.
The key takeaway here is that a dissertation (or thesis) is a formal piece of research, reflecting the research process. It’s not an opinion piece , nor a place to push your agenda or try to convince someone of your position. Writing a good dissertation involves asking a question and taking a systematic, rigorous approach to answering it.
If you understand this and are comfortable leaving your opinions or preconceived ideas at the door, you’re already off to a good start!
As we saw, the first step of the research process is to ask a specific, well-articulated question. In other words, you need to find a research topic that asks a specific question or set of questions (these are called research questions ). Sounds easy enough, right? All you’ve got to do is identify a question or two and you’ve got a winning research topic. Well, not quite…
A good dissertation or thesis topic has a few important attributes. Specifically, a solid research topic should be:
Let’s take a closer look at these:
Attribute #1: Clear
Your research topic needs to be crystal clear about what you’re planning to research, what you want to know, and within what context. There shouldn’t be any ambiguity or vagueness about what you’ll research.
Here’s an example of a clearly articulated research topic:
An analysis of consumer-based factors influencing organisational trust in British low-cost online equity brokerage firms.
As you can see in the example, its crystal clear what will be analysed (factors impacting organisational trust), amongst who (consumers) and in what context (British low-cost equity brokerage firms, based online).
Attribute #2: Unique
Your research should be asking a question(s) that hasn’t been asked before, or that hasn’t been asked in a specific context (for example, in a specific country or industry).
For example, sticking organisational trust topic above, it’s quite likely that organisational trust factors in the UK have been investigated before, but the context (online low-cost equity brokerages) could make this research unique. Therefore, the context makes this research original.
One caveat when using context as the basis for originality – you need to have a good reason to suspect that your findings in this context might be different from the existing research – otherwise, there’s no reason to warrant researching it.
Attribute #3: Important
Simply asking a unique or original question is not enough – the question needs to create value. In other words, successfully answering your research questions should provide some value to the field of research or the industry. You can’t research something just to satisfy your curiosity. It needs to make some form of contribution either to research or industry.
For example, researching the factors influencing consumer trust would create value by enabling businesses to tailor their operations and marketing to leverage factors that promote trust. In other words, it would have a clear benefit to industry.
So, how do you go about finding a unique and valuable research topic? We explain that in detail in this video post – How To Find A Research Topic . Yeah, we’ve got you covered 😊
Once you’ve pinned down a high-quality research topic, the next step is to convince your university to let you research it. No matter how awesome you think your topic is, it still needs to get the rubber stamp before you can move forward with your research. The research proposal is the tool you’ll use for this job.
So, what’s in a research proposal?
The main “job” of a research proposal is to convince your university, advisor or committee that your research topic is worthy of approval. But convince them of what? Well, this varies from university to university, but generally, they want to see that:
At the proposal stage, it’s (generally) not expected that you’ve extensively reviewed the existing literature , but you will need to show that you’ve done enough reading to identify a clear gap for original (unique) research. Similarly, they generally don’t expect that you have a rock-solid research methodology mapped out, but you should have an idea of whether you’ll be undertaking qualitative or quantitative analysis , and how you’ll collect your data (we’ll discuss this in more detail later).
Long story short – don’t stress about having every detail of your research meticulously thought out at the proposal stage – this will develop as you progress through your research. However, you do need to show that you’ve “done your homework” and that your research is worthy of approval .
So, how do you go about crafting a high-quality, convincing proposal? We cover that in detail in this video post – How To Write A Top-Class Research Proposal . We’ve also got a video walkthrough of two proposal examples here .
Once your proposal’s been approved, its time to get writing your actual dissertation or thesis! The good news is that if you put the time into crafting a high-quality proposal, you’ve already got a head start on your first three chapters – introduction, literature review and methodology – as you can use your proposal as the basis for these.
Handy sidenote – our free dissertation & thesis template is a great way to speed up your dissertation writing journey.
What’s the introduction chapter all about?
The purpose of the introduction chapter is to set the scene for your research (dare I say, to introduce it…) so that the reader understands what you’ll be researching and why it’s important. In other words, it covers the same ground as the research proposal in that it justifies your research topic.
What goes into the introduction chapter?
This can vary slightly between universities and degrees, but generally, the introduction chapter will include the following:
As you can see, this all about explaining the “what” and the “why” of your research (as opposed to the “how”). So, your introduction chapter is basically the salesman of your study, “selling” your research to the first-time reader and (hopefully) getting them interested to read more.
How do I write the introduction chapter, you ask? We cover that in detail in this post .
As I mentioned earlier, you’ll need to do some initial review of the literature in Steps 2 and 3 to find your research gap and craft a convincing research proposal – but that’s just scratching the surface. Once you reach the literature review stage of your dissertation or thesis, you need to dig a lot deeper into the existing research and write up a comprehensive literature review chapter.
What’s the literature review all about?
There are two main stages in the literature review process:
The first stage is for you to deep dive into the existing literature (journal articles, textbook chapters, industry reports, etc) to gain an in-depth understanding of the current state of research regarding your topic. While you don’t need to read every single article, you do need to ensure that you cover all literature that is related to your core research questions, and create a comprehensive catalogue of that literature , which you’ll use in the next step.
Reading and digesting all the relevant literature is a time consuming and intellectually demanding process. Many students underestimate just how much work goes into this step, so make sure that you allocate a good amount of time for this when planning out your research. Thankfully, there are ways to fast track the process – be sure to check out this article covering how to read journal articles quickly .
Once you’ve worked through the literature and digested it all, you’ll need to write up your literature review chapter. Many students make the mistake of thinking that the literature review chapter is simply a summary of what other researchers have said. While this is partly true, a literature review is much more than just a summary. To pull off a good literature review chapter, you’ll need to achieve at least 3 things:
As you can see, a good literature review is more than just a summary of the published research. It’s the foundation on which your own research is built, so it deserves a lot of love and attention. Take the time to craft a comprehensive literature review with a suitable structure .
But, how do I actually write the literature review chapter, you ask? We cover that in detail in this video post .
Once you’ve completed your literature review and have a sound understanding of the existing research, its time to develop your own research (finally!). You’ll design this research specifically so that you can find the answers to your unique research question.
There are two steps here – designing your research strategy and executing on it:
The first step is to design your research strategy and craft a methodology chapter . I won’t get into the technicalities of the methodology chapter here, but in simple terms, this chapter is about explaining the “how” of your research. If you recall, the introduction and literature review chapters discussed the “what” and the “why”, so it makes sense that the next point to cover is the “how” –that’s what the methodology chapter is all about.
In this section, you’ll need to make firm decisions about your research design. This includes things like:
If these words have got your head spinning, don’t worry! We’ll explain these in plain language in other posts. It’s not essential that you understand the intricacies of research design (yet!). The key takeaway here is that you’ll need to make decisions about how you’ll design your own research, and you’ll need to describe (and justify) your decisions in your methodology chapter.
Once you’ve worked out your research design, you’ll put it into action and start collecting your data. This might mean undertaking interviews, hosting an online survey or any other data collection method. Data collection can take quite a bit of time (especially if you host in-person interviews), so be sure to factor sufficient time into your project plan for this. Oftentimes, things don’t go 100% to plan (for example, you don’t get as many survey responses as you hoped for), so bake a little extra time into your budget here.
Once you’ve collected your data, you’ll need to do some data preparation before you can sink your teeth into the analysis. For example:
Once you’ve completed your data prep, you’ll undertake your analysis, using the techniques that you described in your methodology. Depending on what you find in your analysis, you might also do some additional forms of analysis that you hadn’t planned for. For example, you might see something in the data that raises new questions or that requires clarification with further analysis.
The type(s) of analysis that you’ll use depend entirely on the nature of your research and your research questions. For example:
Again, if these words have got your head spinning, don’t worry! We’ll explain these concepts and techniques in other posts. The key takeaway is simply that there’s no “one size fits all” for research design and methodology – it all depends on your topic, your research questions and your data. So, don’t be surprised if your study colleagues take a completely different approach to yours.
Once you’ve completed your analysis, it’s time to present your findings (finally!). In a dissertation or thesis, you’ll typically present your findings in two chapters – the results chapter and the discussion chapter .
What’s the difference between the results chapter and the discussion chapter?
While these two chapters are similar, the results chapter generally just presents the processed data neatly and clearly without interpretation, while the discussion chapter explains the story the data are telling – in other words, it provides your interpretation of the results.
For example, if you were researching the factors that influence consumer trust, you might have used a quantitative approach to identify the relationship between potential factors (e.g. perceived integrity and competence of the organisation) and consumer trust. In this case:
Depending on the university and degree, these two chapters (results and discussion) are sometimes merged into one , so be sure to check with your institution what their preference is. Regardless of the chapter structure, this section is about presenting the findings of your research in a clear, easy to understand fashion.
Importantly, your discussion here needs to link back to your research questions (which you outlined in the introduction or literature review chapter). In other words, it needs to answer the key questions you asked (or at least attempt to answer them).
For example, if we look at the sample research topic:
In this case, the discussion section would clearly outline which factors seem to have a noteworthy influence on organisational trust. By doing so, they are answering the overarching question and fulfilling the purpose of the research .
For more information about the results chapter , check out this post for qualitative studies and this post for quantitative studies .
Last but not least, you’ll need to wrap up your research with the conclusion chapter . In this chapter, you’ll bring your research full circle by highlighting the key findings of your study and explaining what the implications of these findings are.
What exactly are key findings? The key findings are those findings which directly relate to your original research questions and overall research objectives (which you discussed in your introduction chapter). The implications, on the other hand, explain what your findings mean for industry, or for research in your area.
Sticking with the consumer trust topic example, the conclusion might look something like this:
Key findings
This study set out to identify which factors influence consumer-based trust in British low-cost online equity brokerage firms. The results suggest that the following factors have a large impact on consumer trust:
While the following factors have a very limited impact on consumer trust:
Notably, within the 25-30 age groups, Factors E had a noticeably larger impact, which may be explained by…
Implications
The findings having noteworthy implications for British low-cost online equity brokers. Specifically:
The large impact of Factors X and Y implies that brokers need to consider….
The limited impact of Factor E implies that brokers need to…
As you can see, the conclusion chapter is basically explaining the “what” (what your study found) and the “so what?” (what the findings mean for the industry or research). This brings the study full circle and closes off the document.
You’re still with me? Impressive! I know that this post was a long one, but hopefully you’ve learnt a thing or two about how to write a dissertation or thesis, and are now better equipped to start your own research.
To recap, the 8 steps to writing a quality dissertation (or thesis) are as follows:
Once you’ve wrapped up the core chapters, all that’s typically left is the abstract , reference list and appendices. As always, be sure to check with your university if they have any additional requirements in terms of structure or content.
This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...
thankfull >>>this is very useful
Thank you, it was really helpful
unquestionably, this amazing simplified way of teaching. Really , I couldn’t find in the literature words that fully explicit my great thanks to you. However, I could only say thanks a-lot.
Great to hear that – thanks for the feedback. Good luck writing your dissertation/thesis.
This is the most comprehensive explanation of how to write a dissertation. Many thanks for sharing it free of charge.
Very rich presentation. Thank you
Thanks Derek Jansen|GRADCOACH, I find it very useful guide to arrange my activities and proceed to research!
Thank you so much for such a marvelous teaching .I am so convinced that am going to write a comprehensive and a distinct masters dissertation
It is an amazing comprehensive explanation
This was straightforward. Thank you!
I can say that your explanations are simple and enlightening – understanding what you have done here is easy for me. Could you write more about the different types of research methods specific to the three methodologies: quan, qual and MM. I look forward to interacting with this website more in the future.
Thanks for the feedback and suggestions 🙂
Hello, your write ups is quite educative. However, l have challenges in going about my research questions which is below; *Building the enablers of organisational growth through effective governance and purposeful leadership.*
Very educating.
Just listening to the name of the dissertation makes the student nervous. As writing a top-quality dissertation is a difficult task as it is a lengthy topic, requires a lot of research and understanding and is usually around 10,000 to 15000 words. Sometimes due to studies, unbalanced workload or lack of research and writing skill students look for dissertation submission from professional writers.
Thank you 💕😊 very much. I was confused but your comprehensive explanation has cleared my doubts of ever presenting a good thesis. Thank you.
thank you so much, that was so useful
Hi. Where is the excel spread sheet ark?
could you please help me look at your thesis paper to enable me to do the portion that has to do with the specification
my topic is “the impact of domestic revenue mobilization.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Tagged: Dissertation Writing
Share this:
Below are guidelines for first and second markers of dissertations. It is important that you are familiar with these.
The guidelines are in three parts. The first part sets out the procedures that must be followed by first and second markers, and includes a section on borderline marks. Please note that for dissertations, Distinction, Merit, and Pass borderlines are all relevant.
The second part sets out guidelines for interpreting Turnitin reports. It is the responsibility of the first marker to check these, and these guidelines are intended to help determine if there is a potential plagiarism issue.
The final part is an assessment guideline. Please note that these guidelines are intended to be that – to help guide decisions – and not as an absolute measure. They can be helpful in determining marks to be awarded and also in helping markers and second markers decide an agreed mark.
Please also note that University regulations require that dissertations should be assessed by two markers, and so are separate from recent changes to the moderation of exams and coursework.
The first marker provides the larger part of feedback on the MSc Dissertation Feedback Form and under headings which have been designed to reflect the intended learning outcomes of the dissertation
Feedback should be full and detailed enough for students learn from it.
No mark should be entered on the feedback form, but instead entered a mark on the MSc Dissertation Mark Record Sheet
There are guidelines later on how to read a Turnitin report. If, following your own assessment of the Turnitin report, you believe there is cause for concern, please first discuss this with your dissertation coordinator. Likewise, if you have good cause to suspect plagiarism but it does not show on the Turnitin report (possibly purchased), please first discuss this with your dissertation coordinator. Any suspected cases of plagiarism should then be forwarded to Humphrey Bourne together with as much evidence as can be found
The second marker should also mark the dissertation in the normal way, but is not expected to write detailed feedback to the student. Instead, the second marker should write a brief overall summary of the dissertation’s strengths and weaknesses to be added to the Feedback Form.
The marker should then add their mark to the Mark Record Sheet.
Markers need to agree a final mark. It is imperative that once the mark has been agreed and recorded on the mark record sheet that a brief explanation of the mark is given. Where the initial mark of the two markers differs by more than five marks, a fuller explanation of how an agreed mark has been reached needs to be given.The reason for this is because it is the primary means by which external examiners can see that the process has been followed correctly and with consideration. External examiners raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the agreeing of marks for dissertations, and a clear trail is important in demonstrating that we are carrying out marking responsibilities properly.
Two important points to note with regard to grade boundaries in the marking of dissertations:
The University uses the text comparison software Turnitin to help us to identify plagiarism. The report that Turnitin generates includes a number referred to as a ‘similarity index’. If there is a suspicion of plagiarism, the Chair of the school board of examiners will decide, in consultation with the Faculty plagiarism officers, and using the criteria listed in section 8 of the examination regulations, whether the case appears minor and can be handled at school level or is more significant, requiring involvement from the Faculty. The % similarity index indicates the amount of matching text, but this is not necessarily plagiarism. Turnitin does not itself identify plagiarism but highlights matching text. Reports are interpreted and any plagiarism determined by academic judgement.
There are a few points to note when considering Turnitin reports.
The following points can be helpful when looking at Turnitin reports:
Criteria | Distinction 70% plus | Merit 60-69% | Pass 50-59% | Fail 45-49% | Bad Fail below 45% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Framing a research topic and question(s) | Well argued, imaginative choice of problem/area of study Clear and considered central research question and supplementary questions / hypotheses where appropriate Excellent knowledge of related concepts Importance and relevance of research discussed Clear and relevant statement of purpose and research outcomes | Suitable choice of problem / area of study Relevant and clear central question identified, and supplementary questions / hypotheses where appropriate Good knowledge of related concepts Importance of research discussed with limitations Clear statement of purpose and intended research outcomes | Mainly coherent identification of problem / area of study, development of the central research question and of supplementary questions / hypotheses where appropriate Useful knowledge of related concepts Some discussion of relevance and/or importance of research | Weakness in the choice of problem / area of study Research question too broad, or too vaguely articulated, or inappropriate Little or no knowledge of related concepts Little or no discussion of relevance of the research | Unsuitable choice of problem / area of study Little or no attempt at framing the research topic or question Little or no knowledge of related concepts evident No discussion of the relevance of the research |
Understanding and use of literature | Wide-ranging, independent reading evident Excellent knowledge and understanding Critical appraisal strongly evident Development of original thinking and insights Excellent organisation of literature allowing for well-reasoned arguments, High degree of coherence | Evidence of independent reading, although range of issues limited in scope Good knowledge and understanding Developing critical appraisal evident Good organisation of literature allowing for logical development of arguments Good level of coherence | Some evidence of independent reading although may rely too much on recommended reading Satisfactory knowledge and understanding Some emerging evidence of critical thinking Organisation of literature satisfactory Key concepts addressed Satisfactorily coheren | Little or no evidence of independent reading Limited level of knowledge and understanding of key concepts and ideas There is little or no evidence of critical thinking Organisation of literature is poor and does not allow development of arguments Significant gaps in the literature Little coherence | Scant evidence of familiarity with literature relevant to topic Insufficient knowledge and understanding of key concepts and ideas There is no evidence of critical thinking Organisation of ideas is very weak or non-existent |
Methodology | A clear and deep knowledge of methodology used and of underpinning theories Understanding of alternative approaches Fully justified choice of research methods Clear indication of strengths and limitations of approach | Well-justified methodology and useful considerations of underpinning theories Awareness of alternative approaches Choice of research methods well justified Indication of strengths and limitations of approach | Methodology adequately justified and chosen methods satisfactorily explained Some awareness of wider research methodologies Choice of research methods largely suitable and justified Strengths and limitations of methodology considered | Methodology mot adequately justified and/or not clear what kind of study was undertaken Choice of methods inappropriate or poorly executed Underpinning theories not considered at a satisfactory level Strengths and limitations inadequately considered | Not clear what kind of study was undertaken. Choice of methods inappropriate and poorly executed No consideration of underpinning theories |
Analysis, discussion and conclusions | Analysis carried out accurately and with high degree of competence in line with methodological and theoretical premises Selection, interpretation, comparison, evaluation, and integration of material from empirical or library sources are extremely effective Significant insight achieved Judgments strongly based on critical appraisal Discussion highly relevant to research question and literature Appropriate discussion of limitations Logically developed and pertinent conclusions | Good analysis of data / concepts or theoretical ideas in line with methodological and theoretical premises Selection, interpretation, comparison, evaluation and integration of material from empirical or library sources are effective, perhaps with some omissions Useful insight achieved Judgements are based on critical appraisal Discussion relevant to research question and literature Some discussion of limitations Conclusion summarises issues and considers implications | Satisfactory analysis of data, concepts or theoretical ideas perhaps with some deviation from theoretical premises Satisfactory selection, interpretation, comparison, evaluation and integration of material from empirical or library sources, with limitations Some insights achieved Judgements show some but limited critical appraisal Discussion of relevance but not comprehensive Conclusion provides summary | Analysis of data, concepts or theoretical ideas is uncertain and/or overly descriptive or anecdotal and/or incorrect Inadequate selection, interpretation, comparison, evaluation and integration of material from empirical or library sources Little or no insights achieved Judgements show lack of critical appraisal Little or no discussion of relevance Conclusions may lack any insight due to inadequate analysis | Little or no analysis of data, concepts or theoretical ideas; descriptive, simplistic and anecdotal and/or incorrect Negligible ability to select, interpret, compare, evaluate and/or integrate material from empirical or library sources No adequate evidence of: insight achieved; critical appraisal; and/or discussion of relevance No conclusions made |
Style and Presentation | Introduction is tightly focused with a clear rationale High degree of internal consistency overall and within each chapter Well-chosen subheadings Highly readable style; ideas communicated clearly Careful editing and proof-reading; few errors Length within stipulations Referencing accurate, appropriate, and conforms exactly to conventions Presentation meets required expectations fully | Introduction is focused and provides useful guidance to rationale Good internal coherence overall and within each chapter Subheadings summarise content effectively Readable; ideas generally communicated clearly Well edited with few errors Length consistent with expectations Referencing is accurate, appropriate and conforms to conventions Presentation meets required expectations fully | Introduction describes the central concerns Overall structure and organisation is satisfactory Internal coherence of the whole, and each chapter, is satisfactory. Subheadings broadly effective Ideas are generally communicated clearly but language used may present some comprehension difficulties Length is acceptable Referencing generally conforms to expectations with occasional inaccuracies Presentation meets most expectations | Introduction may not reflect focus of study Structure and organisation may not be satisfactory leading to weakness in internal coherence overall and within chapters Subheadings not effective Ideas may not be presented clearly and language may present comprehension difficulties Length may not be consistent with expectations Referencing may contain inaccuracies in citation and attribution Presentation may fail to meet expectations | Ineffective introduction Poor structure so that arguments that may be present fail to develop logically Incoherence within and between chapters evident throughout Language used presents significant comprehension difficulties There may be significant typological errors The length may be unacceptable Referencing may contain substantial inaccuracies in citation and attribution Presentation may fail to meet expectations |
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.
Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
Regulations 50 - 68: Undergraduate and postgraduate progression, degree award, postgraduate merit and distinction, credit from other universities.
Degrees, diplomas and certificates are awarded by the Senatus on the basis of Board of Examiners’ recommendations. Each honours programme of study, the MBChB and the BVM&S, has a Board of Examiners responsible for recommending the award of the degree and determining the classification of the degree. Each postgraduate degree, diploma or certificate examination has a Board of Examiners responsible both for determining progression to diploma/masters dissertation (on programmes where there is an identifiable taught component followed by a dissertation/research project) and for determining the final award of the qualification.
50.1 Information on the criteria for award of degrees, diplomas and certificates is published in advance.
To progress to the next year of study and into honours, students must meet the requirements for progression which are specified in the Degree Regulations and Programmes of Study and degree programme tables.
Degree Regulations and Programmes of Study
51.1 The Undergraduate Progression Board has responsibility for ensuring that students have met the requirements for progression, on the basis of information provided by Boards of Examiners.
Undergraduate Progression Boards Policy
51.2 The requirements for degrees are set out in the University’s Curriculum Framework:
Models for Degree Types
The Undergraduate Progression Board has the responsibility to decide which students can progress to the next year of honours study. Progressing students must:
(a) pass at least 80 credits at SCQF level 9 or above in junior honours and level 10 or above in senior honours for undergraduate Masters degrees; and
(b) have an overall average of 40% or more for the 120 credits of study taken in the relevant honours year; and
(c) must satisfy any other specific requirements for the degree programme, as published in the programme handbook.
When all the marks for the taught components of the relevant year of the programme (120 credits) are available, if the student has achieved PASS marks in at least 80 credits and has an overall average of 40% or more over the full 120 credits, then they will be awarded credits on aggregate for the failed courses.
52.1 The Undergraduate Progression Board has responsibility for ensuring that students have met the requirements for progression, on the basis of information provided by Boards of Examiners.
52.2 The requirements for degrees are set out in the University’s Curriculum Framework:
52.3 In general failed courses are not included in the student’s transcript, but any failed course for which the student has been awarded credits on aggregate must be shown in the transcript as a fail but with credit on aggregate. In reporting course marks, Schools are required to upload a fail but with credit on aggregate outcome on to the student record system, in addition to other final course marks.
52.4 PASS marks are defined in the “PASS” section (A1 to PS) of “Recording of Course Assessment Results within EUCLID”, as are EUCLID grades for Credit on aggregate (AA, CA and UA).
Assessment results
52.5 Where a student studies abroad for a single semester in the junior Honours year, decisions regarding eligibility for credit on aggregate are made separately for the semester spent studying abroad and the semester spent in Edinburgh. Students are eligible for up to 20 credits to be awarded on aggregate in each semester, in line with the criteria above.
Students registered for an Ordinary or General (non-Honours) degree may be awarded the degree if they satisfy the requirements in the Degree Regulations and Programmes of Study.
53.1 The Board of Examiners or Undergraduate Progression Board may propose the award of an Ordinary or General degree to those students who have met the requirements of one of these degrees but who do not satisfy the honours degree requirements.
53.2 The Board of Examiners or Undergraduate Progression Board should take account of the recommendations of the Special Circumstances Committee and the student’s general academic record when determining the award of a degree. However, it is not within the power of a Board of Examiners or Undergraduate Progression Board to recommend the award of a degree without substantial evidence of attainment to at least the lowest level required for the award of that qualification. Boards of Examiners or Undergraduate Progression Board may not be generous in cases of failure other than within the limits already set out in these regulations.
The Board of Examiners has the responsibility to decide which students can be awarded a classified honours degree. To graduate students must:
(a) pass at least 80 credits at SCQF level 10 or above in their final honours year; and
(b) have an overall average of 40% or more for the 120 credits of final honours; and
(c) must satisfy any other specific requirements for the degree programme.
When all the marks for the taught components of the final year of the programme (120 credits) are available, if the student has achieved PASS marks in at least 80 credits and has an overall average of 40% or more over the full 120 credits, then they will be awarded credits on aggregate for the failed courses.
54.1 The requirements for degrees are set out in the University’s Curriculum Framework:
54.2 In general failed courses are not included in the student’s transcript, but any failed course for which the student has been awarded credits on aggregate must be shown in the transcript as a fail but with credit on aggregate. In reporting course marks, Schools are required to upload a fail but with credit on aggregate outcome on to the student record system, along with other final course marks.
54.3 The Board of Examiners may propose the award of an Ordinary or General degree be made to students who do not achieve the honours classification requirements, on the basis of their honours achievements.
54.4 The Board of Examiners may propose the award of an honours degree to students who do not achieve the requirements for an undergraduate masters, on the basis of their senior honours achievements.
54.5 The Board of Examiners should take account of the recommendations of the Special Circumstances Committee and of the student’s general academic record, when determining the classification and award of a degree. However, it is not within the power of a Board of Examiners to recommend the award of a degree without substantial evidence of attainment to at least the lowest level required for the award of that qualification or classification. Boards of Examiners may not be generous in cases of failure other than within the limits already set out in these regulations.
54.6 PASS marks are defined in the “PASS” section (A1 to PS) of “Recording of Course Assessment Results within EUCLID”.
The Board of Examiners for assessment of students in their final year is responsible for deriving the classification for award of an honours degree. Degree classification is derived by calculating the mean of marks of the individual courses, weighted by the number of credit points of each course. Exceptions are outlined in the guidance on the regulation.
55.1 The assessment weighting of a course within the classification calculation is proportional to its credit value.
55.2 For degrees with two honours years, including degree programmes with an obligatory period of residence/study abroad, the classification is based on a credit-weighted average of performance across both honours years, except for:
(a) modern language degree programmes with a prescribed period of residence abroad where credit points for language acquisition through residence are aggregated with those associated with the language learning in the final year and where the classification is based on two honours years in line with this aggregation;
(b) degree programmes where students can opt to spend a period of residence/study abroad, where credits will be allocated for the study abroad but these are weighted zero in the final classification;
(c) the MA in International Business and the LLB in Global Law where the classification for these students is based solely on the final honours year; and
(d) the BSc Honours degrees in the School of Biological Sciences and Deanery of Biomedical Sciences which are weighted 2:1 Senior: Junior Honours; and the BSc degrees in Chemistry which are weighted 2:1 Senior: Junior Honours.
55.3 Integrated Masters degrees have three honours years and their classification is based on all these years, in which the three honours years are weighted respectively 20, 40, 40 (in percentage terms), with the exception of:
55.4 The relevant Board of Examiners will specify which courses will be used for classification purposes for students who exit with a BSc who were previously on an Integrated Masters degree.
55.5 Intercalated honours degrees have a one-year honours component and their classification is based solely on the honours year. Degree classification is derived by calculating the mean of marks of the individual courses, weighted by the number of credit points of each course.
55.6 Honours degree programmes in the Art and Design subject areas (except the MA Fine Art) within Edinburgh College of Art calculate classification based solely on performance the final honours year.
55.7 Classification models for credit for study abroad are contained in the College Progression Boards for Optional Study Abroad: Terms of Reference.
For programmes where there is an identifiable taught component followed by a project or dissertation component, students must pass the assessment requirements of the taught stage at an appropriate level at the first attempt before progression to the dissertation. In order to progress to the masters dissertation students must:
(a) pass at least 80 credits with a mark of at least 50% in each of the courses which make up these credits; and
(b) attain an average of at least 50% for the 120 credits of study examined at the point of decision for progression; and
(c) satisfy any other specific requirements for the masters degree programme, that are clearly stated in respective programme handbooks.
When all the marks for the taught components of the programme (120 credits) are available, if the student has achieved PASS marks in at least 80 credits and has an overall average of 40% or more over the full 120 credits, then they will be awarded credits on aggregate for the failed courses.
For programmes where the taught and project or dissertation components are taken in parallel, or where there are not identifiable taught and research project or dissertation components, the requirements for progression are determined at programme level, stated in the Programme Handbook.
56.1 For programmes where there is an identifiable taught component followed by a project / dissertation component (e.g. 120 credits of taught courses in semesters 1 and 2, followed by a 60 credit project / dissertation component):
(a) Postgraduate Boards of Examiners are normally convened at least twice during the year for full-time students. The initial meeting to decide matters relating to progression (to masters), or failure, is held at the end of the coursework component. A second meeting to consider the dissertation results and the final award of degrees (or diplomas) is held soon after completion of the programme. Both meetings are equally important.
(b) The Postgraduate Board of Examiners has the responsibility to decide which students can progress to the dissertation required for candidature for the award of a masters degree; or, in the case of other awards, exit either directly or following satisfaction of any outstanding requirement.
(c) Exceptionally, with the permission of the relevant College Committee, a student who has been unable to sit an assessment because of illness or other extenuating circumstance may, if that circumstance is certified, be allowed to progress to the dissertation stage prior to completion of the coursework assessment on condition that the dissertation will subsequently be set aside if the student is eventually unsuccessful in the coursework element of the programme.
56.2 For MFA programmes (240 credits) where there is an identifiable taught component, in order to progress to masters dissertation/project the student must pass at least 120 credits with a mark of at least 50% in each of the courses which make up these credits, and attain an average of at least 50% for the 180 credits of study examined at the point of decision for progression to dissertation/project, and satisfy any other requirements as outlined in 56 (c) above.
56.3 For postgraduate taught programmes involving 360 credits, information regarding progression requirements is included in the relevant programme handbook.
56.4 The average for the courses is derived by calculating the mean of marks of the individual courses, weighted by the number of credit points of each course. Courses where credit has been obtained by recognition of prior learning are excluded from the average, except where the credit was awarded for the certificate or diploma associated with the masters degree.
56.5 In general failed courses are not included in the student’s transcript, but any failed course for which the student has been awarded credits on aggregate must be shown in the transcript as a fail but with credit on aggregate. In reporting course marks, Schools are required to upload a fail but with credit on aggregate outcome on to the student record system, along with other final course marks.
56.6 In Regulation 56(a) above, where some of the 80 credits are pass/fail courses, then where these courses are passed, they can be included in the 80 credit total. However, pass/fail courses are excluded from the calculation under Regulation 56(b).
C ommon marking scheme
56.7 PASS marks are defined in the “PASS” section (A1 to PS) of “Recording of Course Assessment Results within EUCLID”
56.8 For MBA programmes (180 credits) where there is an identifiable taught component, in order to progress to the Capstone Project the student must pass at least 110 credits with a mark of at least 50% in each of the courses which make up these credits, and attain an average of at least 50% for the credits of study examined at the point of decision for progression, and satisfy any other requirements as outlined in 56 (c) above. If the student does not meet the progression criteria above, but is in a position to be able to meet the criteria based on the outcome of the outstanding credits, the progression decision will be deferred until the result of the outstanding credits are known.
56.9 For the EMBA programme and Online MBA programmes (180 credits) where there is an identifiable taught component, in order to progress to the 40 credit Capstone project the student must pass at least 100 credits with a mark of at least 50% in each of the courses which make up these credits, and attain an average of at least 50% for the credits of study examined at the point of decision for progression, and satisfy any other requirements as outlined in 56 (c) above. In order to progress to the 30 credit Capstone project, the student must pass at least 110 credits with a mark of at least 50% in each of the courses which make up these credits, and attain an average of at least 50% for the credits of study examined at the point of decision for progression, and satisfy any other requirements as outlined in 56 (c) above. If the student does not meet the progression criteria above, but is in a position to be able to meet the criteria based on the outcome of outstanding credits, the progression decision will be deferred until the result of the outstanding credits are known.
In order to be awarded the certificate students must:
(a) pass at least 40 credits with a mark of at least 40%; and
(b) attain an average of at least 40% for the 60 credits of study examined for the certificate; and
(c) satisfy any other specific requirements for the named certificate that are clearly stated in respective programme handbooks.
In order to be awarded the diploma students must:
(a) pass at least 80 credits with a mark of at least 40%; and
(b) attain an average of at least 40% for the 120 credits of study examined for the diploma; and
(c) satisfy any other specific requirements for the named diploma that are clearly stated in respective programme handbooks.
In order to be awarded a masters degree students must:
(a) have satisfied any requirements for progression, as laid out in taught assessment regulation 56 above, and
(b) attain an additional 60 credits, by achieving a mark of at least 50% for the dissertation or project component (if the programme has a dissertation or project element) and
(c) satisfy any other specific requirements for the masters degree programme, that are clearly stated in respective Programme Handbooks.
When all the marks for the taught components of the programme or diploma are available, if the student has achieved a mark of at least 40% in at least 80 credits and has an overall average of 40% or more over the full 120 credits, then they will be awarded credits on aggregate for the failed courses, up to a maximum of 40 credits. For a certificate, a maximum of 20 credits may be awarded on aggregate.
57.1 Boards of Examiners, including those involving subjects from two or more of the Schools, are required to establish guidelines in advance on how the results of individual papers or units of assessment are to be aggregated, averaged or profiled to produce the overall final result. These guidelines are an integral part of the disclosure process and must be published to students within one month of the start of the programme.
57.2 In line with the Postgraduate Degree Regulations, postgraduate taught programmes may include some courses at SCQF levels below 11. Where courses at SCQF level 9 or below are included in a programme, marks for these courses are disregarded for the purposes of calculating averages for the award of credit on aggregate, progression, award, and the award of Merit and Distinction.
57.3 The average for the courses is derived by calculating the mean of marks of the individual courses, weighted by the number of credit points of each course. Courses where credit has been obtained by recognition of prior learning are excluded from the average, except where the credit was awarded for the certificate or diploma associated with the masters degree.
57.4 In general failed courses are not included in the student’s transcript, but any failed course for which the student has been awarded credits on aggregate must be shown in the transcript as a fail but with credit on aggregate. Exam Boards must make this distinction clear when reporting course marks.
57.5 The Board of Examiners should take account of any relevant special circumstances and of the student’s general academic record, when determining the award of a degree. However, it is not within the power of a Board of Examiners to recommend the award of a degree without substantial evidence of attainment to at least the lowest level required for the award of that qualification. Boards of Examiners may not be generous in cases of failure other than within the limits already set out in these regulations.
57.6 The Postgraduate Degree Regulations permit a General Postgraduate Certificate or General Postgraduate Diploma to be attained by students who do not fulfil the requirements for a specific Certificate or Diploma award but who have attained the required volume and level of credits.
57.7 PASS marks are defined in the “PASS” section (A1 to PS) of “Recording of Course Assessment Results within EUCLID”
Students may be permitted to resubmit the dissertation or research project in line with the provisions of the Special Circumstances Policy where a student’s performance in assessment has been affected by illness, accident or circumstances beyond their control (58.1-58.2).
Students are also entitled to one resubmission of the dissertation or research project for postgraduate Masters programmes where the student has achieved a mark of 45 to 49% at the first attempt (58.3-58.9).
58.1 Where a student is granted the opportunity to resubmit the dissertation or research project due to special circumstances, the Board of Examiners will be responsible for providing the student with a statement which outlines the deficiencies in their original submission, and agreeing an appropriate deadline and appropriate supervision. The student will be granted a null sit for their first attempt, and the recorded mark for their revised dissertation or project will not be capped. Paragraphs 58.3 to 58.8 do not apply to students granted the opportunity to resubmit their dissertation or research project due to special circumstances.
58.2 Students who have been granted an opportunity to resubmit the dissertation or research project due to special circumstances may be permitted one further resubmission under this regulation (with reference to paragraphs 58.3 to 58.9), provided they meet the eligibility requirements.
58.3 Where a student receives 48 or 49% for the dissertation or research project at the first attempt, they may be considered as a borderline candidate for the award of the Master’s degree, in line with published information regarding consideration of borderline cases (see Regulation 44).
58.4 Since the concept of borderlines (see Regulation 44) does not apply to the threshold for entitlement to resubmit a dissertation or research project, Boards of Examiners are not able to permit students with marks of 43 or 44% at the first attempt to resubmit their dissertation or project unless special circumstances apply.
58.5 Students who achieve a mark of 45 to 49% for the dissertation or research project at the first attempt as a result of a marking penalty, either for late submission or for academic misconduct, are entitled to one resubmission, in line with this regulation.
58.6 The relevant Board of Examiners will provide a student permitted to submit a revised dissertation or research project with a statement which outlines the deficiencies in their original submission. The student is also entitled to receive further written advice from their dissertation or research project supervisor on one occasion before resubmission. The student must include with their revised dissertation a statement outlining the changes made to the previous submission. This statement will not be marked.
58.7 The Board of Examiners will advise the student of the deadline for submission of their revised dissertation or research project, which will be three months from the date of the student receiving notification of their original result. Extension requests and special circumstances submissions in relation to this deadline will be handled in line with provisions outlined within the Taught Assessment Regulations and the Special Circumstances Policy. Where special circumstances affect the resubmission, Boards of Examiners are permitted to offer a further resubmission under the Special Circumstances Policy, if they consider this appropriate. The mark for a dissertation resubmitted under these circumstances will be capped at 50%, in line with Regulation 58.9.
58.8 Where a student declines the opportunity to resubmit the dissertation or research project, or fails to submit by the stated deadline, the mark they had received for their first attempt will be treated as final and they will be considered for a relevant exit award.
58.9 If the Board of Examiners agrees that the revised dissertation or research project meets the requirements for a pass at Masters level, the student will be awarded the Masters degree. The recorded mark for the revised dissertation or research project will be capped at 50%.
58.10 For MBA programmes students are entitled to one resubmission of the Capstone Project where the student has achieved a mark of 40 to 49% at the first attempt. The Board of Examiners will advise the student of the deadline for submission of their revised Capstone Project, which will be two months from the first meeting meeting/communication with the supervisor to complete the work. Since the concept of borderlines (see Regulation 44) does not apply to the threshold for entitlement to resubmit a Capstone Project, Boards of Examiners are not able to permit students with marks of 38 or 39% at the first attempt to resubmit their Capstone Project unless special circumstances apply. Regulations 58.1-3 and 58.5-9 also apply.
Taught postgraduate degrees may be awarded with merit. To achieve a merit, a student must be awarded at least 60% on the University’s Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme for the dissertation, if the programme has a dissertation element, and must achieve an average of at least 60% in the remaining elements. Borderlines, for both the dissertation and course average elements, are considered for merits.
59.1 Merit may be awarded for postgraduate taught masters, diplomas and certificates.
59.2 Where a student has been permitted to resubmit their dissertation or research project in line with Regulation 58 (except where Special Circumstances apply), they are not eligible for the award of the degree with merit.
59.3 For degrees which use letter grades in addition to numerical marks, the award of merit will be made where the student meets the above criteria using the numerical mark.
59.4 For MFA, the award of merit relates only to grades obtained at stages 3 and 4 (Year 2).
59.5 Borderline marks are defined as marks from two percentage points below the boundary up to the boundary itself, e.g. 58.00% to 59.99% for the dissertation and for the average of other courses. See also taught assessment regulation 44 above.
59.6 The average for the courses is derived by calculating the mean of marks of the individual courses, weighted by the number of credit points of each course. Courses where credit has been obtained by recognition of prior learning are excluded from the average, except where the credit was awarded for the certificate or diploma associated with the masters degree.
59.7 The Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme can be found at:
Common marking scheme
Taught postgraduate degrees may be awarded with distinction. To achieve a distinction, a student must be awarded at least 70% on the University’s Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme for the dissertation, if the programme has a dissertation element, and must achieve an average of at least 70% in the remaining elements. Borderlines, for both the dissertation and course average elements, are considered for distinctions.
60.1 Distinctions may be awarded for postgraduate taught masters, diplomas and certificates.
60.2 Where a student has been permitted to resubmit their dissertation or research project in line with Regulation 58 (except where Special Circumstances apply), they are not eligible for the award of the degree with distinction.
60.3 For degree programmes which use letter grades in addition to numerical marks, the award of distinction will be made where the student meets the above criteria using the numerical mark.
60.4 For MFA, the award of distinction relates only to grades obtained at stages 3 and 4 (Year 2).
60.5 Borderline marks are defined as marks from two percentage points below boundary up to the boundary itself, e.g. 68.00% to 69.99% for the dissertation and for the average of other courses. See also taught assessment regulation 44 above.
60.6 The average for the courses is derived by calculating the mean of marks of the individual courses, weighted by the number of credit points of each course. Courses where credit has been obtained by recognition of prior learning are excluded from the average, except where the credit was awarded for the certificate or diploma associated with the masters degree.
60.7 The Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme can be found at:
Boards of Examiners confirm the award of credit from other universities which is used in the award of a University of Edinburgh degree.
61.1 There are two types of credit from external bodies: recognition of prior credit at admission, determined by Colleges against published criteria; and recognition of external learning whilst on programme. In both cases recognition of prior learning is recorded on admission.
The internal and External Examiners must concur in the mark and grade to be awarded to each student and in the classification and award of degree to be made. Boards of Examiners must record all decisions in the minutes of the meeting.
62.1 Once the Board of Examiners has decided on the final marks, grades and if appropriate, class of degree and award for each student, the students’ names must then made visible to the Board of Examiners. There must then be a final check of the results before the list is agreed and recorded in the minutes. Only in the event of detection of an error, which was not detectable when examination numbers were used, can changes be made to the marks, grades or class of degree at this stage. Any such change should be recorded in the minutes.
Boards of Examiners
62.2 The Convener receives and is responsible for ensuring that the minutes of the Board of Examiners’ meetings are an accurate record of the meeting and of the approved results.
62.3 Minutes should include:
(a) a record of the names of the examiners and those in attendance at the meeting;
(b) relevant information considered at the meeting or by the Special Circumstances Committee, and outcomes from this;
(c) discussion and outcomes of borderline cases;
(d) details of any modification of marks, grades or classification, and the reasons for these; and
(e) comments by the External Examiner(s) about the examination of the course, the performance of the students in general, and their approval of results agreed by the Board of Examiners.
62.4 The minute is a confidential document, although information on a particular student may need to be disclosed to that student under the Data Protection Act and generic information may need to be disclosed under Freedom of Information. Further information is available at:
Handbook for Boards of Examiners for Taught Courses and Programmes
62.5 If agreement cannot be reached on concurrence of decisions then the issue is referred to the Head of College.
Assessment and course results, degree classification and awards agreed by the Board of Examiners and confirmed by the External Examiner(s) must be recorded on the student record system as the final official results of the University.
63.1 Schools have responsibility for ensuring that final results are displayed accurately in the student record system. More than one person should be involved in checking their accuracy.
63.2 When marks for courses are finalised (and not before then), they must be rounded to an integer, i.e. with no decimal places. Any mark which is xx.50 or above is rounded up and any mark which is xx.49 or below is rounded down, e.g. 59.50% is rounded to 60%, 59.49% is rounded to 59%. Individual course marks must be rounded before they are released to students and the rounded marks must be used in calculating the overall mean mark. The overall mean mark is to be used in Honours classification, progression, and award decisions. The overall mean mark is not rounded.
63.3 Schools have responsibility for uploading course results and final award outcomes in line with the deadlines published each year by Student Systems.
63.4 In the case of autumn (August) undergraduate examinations, results should be submitted as soon as possible and not later than 10 days before the start of the next semester.
63.5 Provisional marks for components of assessment may also be released to students via the student record system (see regulation 36)
Decisions by a Board of Examiners, once certified in writing, are final. In exceptional circumstances a Convener of the Board of Examiners can reconvene the Board to review a decision.
64.1 A Board of Examiners may, at the request of any of its members or member of the Special Circumstances Committee, review a decision if significant information relevant to that decision, which was unavailable at the time the decision was made, comes to light, or if any error having a material bearing on that decision, or an error in the written certification of that decision, has been made. A member of the Board may request a review but it is the Convener who must review the decision in the light of any new significant information or error. Therefore it is the Convener, and not a member of the Board, who decides whether to reconvene the Board. Where the significant information presented would constitute special circumstances under the Special Circumstances Policy, the Board of Examiners should only consider this information where it believes that there is a good reason why the student did not make the information available in advance of the Board’s original decision.
64.2 If the Board is satisfied that there are grounds for varying the decision, the Board shall report its decision to Student Systems
64.3 Where an error is discovered in the assessment or marking of any examination or any component of an examination or in the calculation, recording or notification of the result of any examination or any component thereof or in the classification or result of any degree or in any process connected with any of these matters, the University shall correct that error and amend its records to show the correct result or classification and that whether or not the result or classification has been published or otherwise notified to the student. The University shall notify the student of the corrected result or classification as soon as practicable and shall also correct any reference or statement which may have been provided by the University whether to the student or to a third party. Where such an error affects degree award or classification, the School should contact the relevant College and Academic Services for approval before notifying the student of any change. Having been notified of the corrected result or classification the student shall return to the University any documentation which may have been issued to the student notifying the original result or classification which has been corrected. The student shall have no claim against the University for any loss or damage which may have been incurred by the student as a result of any error which may have been made.
64.4 In proved cases of substantial and significant copying, plagiarism or other fraud, the Senatus has the power to reduce the classification of, or to revoke, any degree it has already awarded, and to require the degree, diploma or certificate scroll to be returned.
64.5 Any member of Senatus may request Senatus to refer for investigation any matter concerning examinations.
The Convener of the Board of Examiners, Progression Board, or Special Circumstances Committee may take decisions by Convener’s Action.
65.1 This may occur when the Board of Examiners takes a decision in principle but needs confirmation or further information, or when the Board, or Special Circumstances Committee considers the possible outcomes and authorises the Convener, once relevant information is known, to apply the appropriate option. Convener’s Action may also be appropriate when the decision to be made follows an existing precedent.
65.2 Decisions made by Convener’s Action should be recorded and reported to the relevant Board or Committee.
When a student fails to complete all the assessment requirements of a degree programme the Board of Examiners or Undergraduate Progression Board will investigate the case. If there is no satisfactory reason then taught assessment regulation 67 on unsatisfactory progress applies. If the Special Circumstances Committee for the relevant Board of Examiners (including Progression Boards) is given sufficient evidence that the performance of a student has been affected for reasons of illness, accident or other circumstances beyond the student’s control, the University’s Special Circumstances Policy applies.
66.1 The University’s Special Circumstances Policy is available at:
Special Circumstances Policy
The University may exclude students who do not meet the criteria for progression and award on their programme.
67.1 Degree regulations, Degree Programme Tables, programme handbooks and/or course handbooks must contain details of the progress which students are expected to achieve within given periods. They must also include warnings that students are liable to be considered for exclusion if these expectations are not met.
67.2 Where a student fails to meet the published progression criteria, the Procedure for Withdrawal and Exclusion from Studies will be used.
Withdrawal and Exclusion from Studies Procedure
67.3 Some degree programmes leading to a professional qualification include Fitness to Practise considerations. Any issues of unsatisfactory progress in relation to fitness to practise are dealt with according to the relevant College’s published Fitness to Practise procedures.
67.4 A student declared to have made unsatisfactory progress under professional Fitness to Practise requirements is normally excluded from all further attendance at classes and examinations leading to the professional qualification, but is entitled to apply to the College for permission to re-enter for assessment in a suitable alternative programme which does not lead to a professional qualification.
Students have the right of academic appeal against the decisions of Boards of Examiners or Progression Boards on specific grounds, which are set out in the University’s Student Appeal Regulations.
Appeals
This article was published on 2024-07-29
Information on examination & progression to dissertation.
The MSc programme structure comprises a taught component during semesters 1 and 2 with dedicated time for a research dissertation over the summer of the 12 month programme.
You will be assessed on the taught component of the programme by a combination of coursework and exams. The exact weighting between coursework and exam is listed on the course DRPS entry.
The University of Edinburgh uses a Common Marking Scheme (CMS) for taught student assessment. Students are marked against this marking scale. You are not ranked against your peers. The Common Marking Scheme link below describes in more detail the level of performance corresponding to the different numeric marks and alphabetic grades in an Informatics context.
Common Marking Scheme
Degree Regulations and Programmes of Study
The correspondence between numerical marks, grades and their interpretation in terms of the MSc is given below.
Mark | Grade | Interpretation |
---|---|---|
> = 70 | A | Excellent, Distinction level |
60-69 | B | Very Good, Merit level |
50-59 | C | Good, Pass level |
40-49 | D | Pass, satisfactory for Diploma but inadequate for MSc |
< 40 | E | Unsatisfactory |
In order to pass at MSc level, and continue on to the MSc dissertation in the summer you must meet both of the following criteria:
If you do not meet these requirements you will not be permitted to progress to complete your dissertation and you may be eligible for a PG Diploma or PG Certificate award.
Full details of assessment applicable to all Informatics students is available in the following section of the student handbook:
Assessment: Coursework, exams & feedback
All progression decisions are made by the Boards of Examiners once all of your course marks for the taught component are available. The Board of Examiners considers students' marks and credits achieved across all courses, in the context of any relevant valid Special Circumstances. All marks are provisional until they are ratified by the Board of Examiners.
Special Circumstances
Students are expected to stay in Edinburgh for the duration of their degree programme, including examination diets. It's important to confirm your examination dates before arranging any absences from Edinburgh. You are also expected to stay in Edinburgh during the writing of the MSc dissertation until the submission deadline. If you are on a Student/Tier 4 visa and leave the country for an extended period of time, the School is obligated to contact the Student Immigration Service who will notify UK Visa and Immigration (UKVI). The School also reserves the right to require you to return to Edinburgh to complete your studies, and to withhold dissertation supervision if you refuse to do so.
Student Visa attendance and monitoring
Your dissertation mark and final award will be considered by the Board of Examiners held in October.
Your final award will be classified based on the following criteria:
The Board of Examiners considers borderline cases as described in the Taught Assessment Regulations . Borderline marks are defined as marks from two percentage points below the class or grade boundary up to the bo undary itself, e.g. 58.00% to 59.99% for a merit classification.
Borderline decisions may take into account the following factors:
Key information about pass marks, how credits are awarded and receiving feedback.
You can find out more about pass marks for modules in our module information guide.
What is the pass mark for a module?
All of your coursework and exam marks are published in MYUWE (login required).
Unconfirmed marks will be released to students via MYUWE as soon as they are available. Please note that unconfirmed marks are subject to moderation by the Examination Board, so they may still go up or down. For this reason, please do not contact your module leader about unconfirmed exam marks that have been individually released in MYUWE.
Your unconfirmed marks should also normally be included on your work when it is returned to you.
The final agreed mark will be confirmed to you on the official publication date once the Examination Board process is complete.
Your marks will be recorded in the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) , which is an electronic report that records your academic achievements.
If you think your mark has been recorded incorrectly, you should immediately draw this to the attention of your Student and Programme Support Team by completing a contact record form and produce the piece of work which you believe shows the correct mark.
If you have concerns about your modules you can speak to your Personal Tutor, a Student Support Adviser , or Student Representative (rep). Normally Student Reps only get involved with issues which affect more than a couple of students, so if you have an individual issue, you should still contact the Students’ Union Advice Centre or a Student Support Adviser.
You can see who your Student Reps are in Blackboard. It will display all the Reps within your programme and it will also place a * next to Reps who you share modules with.
All students have a minimum entitlement to assessment feedback on their assessed work. Normally you should get marks and feedback within 20 working days following the deadline for submission of the assessment, or following the end of the 48-hour late submission window (if this was available for that assessment). This period exclude University closure days and may be shorter or longer for some forms of assessment.
Where the period is greater than 20 working days, you will be informed of the deadline and the reason.
Make sure you find out the specific arrangements for the return of your marked work.
If you are eligible for reasonable adjustments and you have used the 14 day reasonable adjustment period, the period for providing feedback and an outcome will be an additional 14 days to the 20 working days for academic staff to provide your feedback.
If you have chosen to hand in your work during the 48-hour late submission window, the period for providing feedback will be 20 working days following the end of the 48-hour late submission window.
Once ready, your mark will be available in your MYUWE account, but you may see a non-submission (‘NS’) until this time.
How to use your assessment feedback
Find out more about how to make the most of your assessment feedback, including types of feedback and what to do next.
Credits are gained when modules are successfully completed. At UWE Bristol, modules are normally given values between five and 60 credits.
The number of credits assigned to a module is based on learning hours, ie the number of hours which it is expected that students will spend, on average, achieving the learning outcomes. One credit usually equals ten notional hours of study.
You become eligible for an award when you achieve sufficient credit in the required modules. Sometimes ‘module credits’ are described as being like a currency which can be accumulated and then ‘cashed in’ or exchanged when you accept an award (for example an honours or a master's degree).
You can find out more about credits and how they work in the degree classification section .
If you have undertaken prior learning which is relevant to your modules or award, you may be able to apply for it to be recognised under the Accreditation of Prior Learning or Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning processes .
Msc awarding of degrees.
The progress review Board receives the result of all coursework assessments and examinations. Students who pass are permitted to proceed to the dissertation.
In September there is a meeting of the full Board of Examiners for the MSc (including the External Examiner) where the results from all examinations and dissertations for each candidate are available. The Board makes use of University Regulations and Departmental guidelines on the award of MSc degrees and Postgraduate Diplomas. Based on all the available information, including any special circumstances, the Board will make one of the following recommendations. Special consideration is given to borderline or special cases.
Normally awarded if the average combined mark on the taught modules and the dissertation mark is at least 70% and, in addition, the mark on the dissertation is at least 70%.
Failure to meet any of the above conditions.
The above decisions are subject to approval by the Senate.
Students are permitted to resit failed taught modules in September. The maximum possible mark in any resit exam is 50%. The resit for a failed module could either be a written exam or a viva, depending on the recommendation of the Examination Board.
Resubmission of the research project is likewise possible in certain circumstances. Where minor corrections are required the Board may pass the candidate subject to the necessary changes being made. It is then the duty of the supervisor to confirm that these have been carried out.
Experience University of Idaho with a virtual tour. Explore now
Helping to ensure U of I is a safe and engaging place for students to learn and be successful. Read about Title IX.
Review the events calendar.
The largest Vandal Family reunion of the year. Check dates.
U of I's web-based retention and advising tool provides an efficient way to guide and support students on their road to graduation. Login to SlateConnect.
College of Graduate Studies
Physical Address: Morrill Hall Room 104
Mailing Address: College of Graduate Studies University of Idaho 875 Perimeter Drive MS 3017 Moscow, ID 83844-3017
Phone: 208-885-2647
Email: [email protected]
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
A mark between 40 and 49 provides students with an opportunity to make amendments which would allow a pass mark to be reached. Please note that this is the only opportunity that students have to make changes to their dissertation that may result in a different mark being awarded. If successful this mark will be capped at 50.
Pass, merit and distinction is the terminology - learn more about the masters grading system and what your masters degree grades mean. ... Often, to achieve a certain classification, you are required to achieve that mark as minimum on your dissertation, for example, for a merit, your dissertation needs to score 60 or above, and for a ...
Across most universities, the pass mark for a dissertation is 40% or 50%. For example, check out this guide by Royal Holloway University, London to learn more about their dissertation grading. This means that while it is certainly possible to fail your dissertation, it is unlikely that you actually will. However, in the event that you do fail ...
(minimum pass mark 50). If a dissertation module is assessed by the dissertation only, and this dissertation is marked below 50, students have one opportunity to re-submit it in the following year. The mark for the re-submission - if of pass standard - will be capped at 50.
A first class dissertation should demonstrate professional standards of research design and management, and give confidence that the student could undertake professional work in a similar ... This mark is usually reserved for cases where there is no serious attempt to complete the dissertation (as defined in College Regulations). It may also be ...
Fail - Below 39%: A piece in this grade band will display most, if not all, of the following characteristics: irrelevant content, vagueness, error, general lack of understanding. limited knowledge of the subject. significant factual errors. little understanding or actual misunderstanding of the issues and debates.
A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50% and A mark greater than or equal to 60% in the Dissertation. or A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 58.50% and Module marks of at least 60.00% in at least 50% of the taught credits and A mark greater than or equal to 60.00% in the Dissertation. Qualifies for Pass:
Students must obtain a pass grade on the dissertation to pass the MSc degree. The examiners give up to 100 points where the points translate to the following categories: 85−100: An exceptionally high level of understanding and outstanding research potential. 70−84.99: Very high competence and excellent research potential.
For undergraduate courses, the pass mark is 40%. Keeping track of the marks you receive will help you to gauge your performance. ... In order to Progress to Dissertation, a postgraduate student must have achieved a mark of 40% or more in all taught modules and have gained at least 80 credits at Level 7 in modules taken as part of the taught ...
The dissertation pass mark is 50% and students must pass the dissertation in order to pass the MSc. Submitting your Dissertation or Postgraduate Diploma Project. The submission deadline is 2nd September 2024. Submissions will be made via Moodle.
Craft a convincing dissertation or thesis research proposal. Write a clear, compelling introduction chapter. Undertake a thorough review of the existing research and write up a literature review. Undertake your own research. Present and interpret your findings. Draw a conclusion and discuss the implications.
dissertation to have it assessed at any given assessment session. The pass mark for successful completion of the dissertation is 50% (120 out of 240 marks). On completion, dependent on the unit undertaken, you will be awarded the stand-alone Level 7 'Certificate in Insurance Market Specialisation' or the 'Certificate in London Market
Wondering how to prepare and submit your thesis or dissertation? Create an ETD account and use the many resources on the Thesis and Dissertations webpage.There are helpful resources within the ETD module itself, and explanations about publishing options and other items are described in the Handbook.Also in the Handbook are detailed descriptions and explanations of how to format and organize ...
1. Reassessment is only offered when you haven't met the pass grade for a block, and only for the assessment/s within the block which haven't met the pass grade. 2. There is a limit on how much reassessment you can undertake, and this is described in the sections above. 3.
The pass mark is 50%; the minimum mark for the dissertation to gain a Merit is 60%, and for a Distinction it is 70%. Marks close to the boundary between fail and pass, pass and merit, and between merit and distinction will come under scrutiny by the Exam Board if it makes a material difference to the student's exit award.
56.2 For MFA programmes (240 credits) where there is an identifiable taught component, in order to progress to masters dissertation/project the student must pass at least 120 credits with a mark of at least 50% in each of the courses which make up these credits, and attain an average of at least 50% for the 180 credits of study examined at the ...
Thesis Work. The Master of Science and Doctoral programs require a thesis. The master's degree requires at least ten credits of thesis research, and the doctoral degree requires at least 30. Master of Science theses for a BCB degree will demonstrate a high level of scholarly achievement; doctoral dissertations will represent a significant ...
In order to pass at MSc level, and continue on to the MSc dissertation in the summer you must meet both of the following criteria: Achieve an average mark of at least 50% over the taught component of the programme, excluding Pass/Fail courses.; Pass at least 80 out of your 120 credit points with a mark of at least 50%.
RKING CRITERIAMPHIL. MARKING SCHEMEThe passmark is 60%. For the degree to be awarded a candidate must achieve a mark of 60% or higher in each of the parts of the examination, sub. ect to the conditions outlined below. Candidates whose marks are below the passmark or borderline will be invited to a viva voce examination, which wi.
Thesis and Dissertation Resources. You will find all you need to know about starting and completing your thesis or dissertation right here using ETD (Electronic submission of Dissertations and Theses). Note: COGS at this time is unable to provide any troubleshooting support or tutorials on LaTeX. Please use only if you are knowledgeable and ...
Normally you should get marks and feedback within 20 working days following the deadline for submission of the assessment, or following the end of the 48-hour late submission window (if this was available for that assessment). This period exclude University closure days and may be shorter or longer for some forms of assessment.
Normally awarded under the following conditions: (a) average mark on taught modules in the range 40% - 49%, (b) marks of 50% or more in at least 60 CATS of level 7 taught modules, (c) a mark of at least 40% in the dissertation or postgraduate diploma project (see below). Candidates for the MSc degree who have submitted an MSc dissertation but ...
Theses and Dissertation Calendar. Contact. Moscow. College of Graduate Studies. Physical Address: Morrill Hall Room 104. Mailing Address: College of Graduate Studies University of Idaho 875 Perimeter Drive MS 3017 Moscow, ID 83844-3017. Phone: 208-885-2647. Email: cogs@uidaho ...