Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Marking Scales

Excellent

Meets all criteria in 80-89% range below, plus demonstrates exceptional ability and insight, indicating the highest level of technical competence; work is virtually flawless and has potential to influence the forefront of the subject and may be of publishable/​exhibitable quality. Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at the highest possible standard.

Exceptional achievement distinguishable even amongst the best quality work and deserving of the highest possible marks within the Distinction grade.

Excellent

High to very high standard work with most of the following features: authoritative subject knowledge; a high level of critical analysis and evaluation; incisive original thinking; commendable originality; exceptionally well researched, with a very high level of technical competence; high quality presentation; impressive clarity of ideas; excellent coherence and logic. Work is close to the forefront of the subject and may be close to publishable or exhibitable quality. Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a very high level. Referencing is consistently used, complete and accurate. Only trivial or very minor errors.

Very high quality work worthy of a high Distinction grade mark.

Excellent

Authoritative, current subject knowledge; excellent critical analysis and evaluation - including dealing with ambiguity in the data; significant originality; well researched with a high level of technical competence – work is accurate and extensively supported by appropriate evidence; excellent presentation; commendable clarity of ideas; thoughtful and effective presentation; very strong sense of coherence and logic; relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a high level; referencing is excellent - consistently used, complete and accurate; a small number of misunder­standings/​minor errors only.

High quality work deserving of a Distinction grade.

Very good

Work is well-developed and coherent; demonstrates sound, current subject knowledge; a very good level of critical analysis and evaluation; some evidence of original thinking or originality; well researched; no significant errors in the application of concepts or appropriate techniques; a very good standard of presentation; ideas generally clear and coherent; relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a very good level; referencing is very good; minor errors and misunder­standings only, possibly with some deficiencies in presentation.

Well above pass standard and worthy of a Merit grade.

Good/​Satisfactory

Has achieved intended learning outcomes as evidenced by the following features. Satisfactory subject knowledge; a fair level of critical analysis and evaluation; the work is generally sound but tends towards the factual or derivative, and there may be minimal evidence of original thinking or originality; adequately researched; a sound standard of presentation; ideas fairly clear and coherent; some significant errors and misunder­standings, possibly shown by conceptual gaps or limited use of appropriate techniques; relevant generic skills are generally at a satisfactory level; referencing is generally accurate; some weakness in style or presentation.

Satisfactory overall – a clear pass

Unsatisfactory

Has narrowly failed to achieve intended learning outcomes as evidenced by the following features. Satisfactory subject knowledge to some extent; some sound aspects but some of the following weaknesses are evident: factual errors; conceptual gaps; inadequate critical analysis and evaluation; little evidence of originality; not well researched – limited use of appropriate techniques; presentation does not meet the standard required; ideas unclear and/or incoherent; some significant errors and misunder­standings; relevant generic skills unsatisfactory to some extent; referencing may be inadequate.

Work is unsatisfactory but shows potential for achieving learning outcomes if feedback is addressed - Marginal fail

Very Poor

Has failed to achieve intended learning outcomes in several critical respects. Will have some or all of the following features to varying extent: inadequate subject knowledge; factual errors; conceptual gaps; minimal/no awareness of relevant issues and theory; limited/no use of appropriate techniques; standard of presentation unacceptable; ideas confused and/or incoherent – work lacks sound development; a poor critical analysis and evaluation; no evidence of originality; inadequately researched; some serious misunder­standings and errors; quality of relevant generic skills does not meet the requirements of the task.

A clear fail well short of the pass standard

Nothing of Merit

Nothing of value is contained in the submitted work. The work presents information that is irrelevant and unconnected to the task; no evident awareness of appropriate principles, theories, evidence or techniques

Non-submission

No work has been submitted

Academic Misconduct notation

Applies to proven instances of academic misconduct