University Homepage School Homepage School Contacts School Search

Marking the MInf Project Final Report

Note to moderators (and 1st and 2nd markers)

The report is read independently by the project supervisor and a second member of staff (and, in some cases, by others). It must contain all information relevant to the project since, in general, the readers will be unaware of the work undertaken, the difficulties encountered and the results obtained. The readers allocate a numerical mark after assessing the project work in terms of the following criteria:

BASIC CRITERIA

• Understanding of the problem
• Completion of the project
• Quality of the work
• Quality of the dissertation

ADDITIONAL CRITERIA

• Knowledge of the literature
• Critical evaluation of previous work
• Critical evaluation of own work
• Justification of the design decisions
• Solution of any conceptual problems
• Amount of work

EXCEPTIONAL CRITERIA

• Evidence of originality
• Inclusion of publishable material

Projects are marked according to the following classifications.

0-19: Bad Fail

The project is inadequate in each of the basic criteria.

20-29: Clear Fail

The project is inadequate in more than one of the basic criteria, but not all.

30-39: Marginal Fail

The project is inadequate in one of the basic criteria.

40-49: III

The project is adequate on each of the basic criteria.

50-59: II.2

The project is at least average on each of the basic criteria and is average on most of the additional criteria.

60-69: II.1

The project is at least good on each of the basic criteria and is at least average and sometimes good or excellent on each of the additional criteria.

70-79: Low I

The project is good or excellent on all the basic and additional criteria.

80-89: High I

The project is good or excellent on all the basic and additional criteria and also has elements of the exceptional criteria.

90-100: Outstanding I

The project is excellent on all the basic and additional criteria, and has strong elements of the exceptional criteria.

Interpreting the criteria

Many projects will not fit neatly into any category, e.g. strong on additional criteria, but weak on a basic one. In this case markers are asked to trade one criterion off against another, bearing in mind that failure on a basic criterion is a serious fault.

The aim of the project is to teach sound scientific and engineering methodology. The project should be assessed on the evidence that these have been demonstrated.