Criteria for Marking of MPhil Essays and Dissertations
The word limit for both essays and dissertation should be strictly applied and examiners may decline to read any material in excess of it. For both essays and the dissertation, candidates are required to clearly state the word length at the end of their piece of submitted work. In addition, the word length will be verified by the Postgraduate Secretary, using the electronic copy of the work submitted via Moodle. Dates for submitting both essays and dissertation should be strictly adhered to and examiners may penalise or decline to read work which is submitted late.
For the purpose of examining, the work done in the MPhil is divided into two components: the essays, taken as a group and the dissertation. Award of the MPhil Degree requires that EITHER both components reach the Pass standard OR one component reaches the Marginal Fail standard but this is compensated for by the other component reaching the Clear Pass standard, or higher. These standards are defined below.
The examiners will award a distinction to any candidate who (i) gains a distinction mark (i.e. 75 or above) in at least one component of the MPhil and (ii) gains an overall mark of 72 or above.
The overall mark for the MPhil Degree is a weighted average of the marks for both essays and the dissertation. The weights are in proportion to the word limits for each, according to the following formula:
Essay component mark = (1/3 x mark for 4,000 word Michaelmas Term essay) + (2/3 x mark for 8,000 word Lent Term essay), rounded to the nearest whole mark.
Overall mark = (½ x essay component mark) + (½ x 12,000 word Easter Term dissertation mark), rounded upwards in case of half marks.
To reach the required standard, MPhil work must be clearly written, must take account of previously published work on the subject, and must represent a contribution to learning. The examining reflects the fact that there are many ways to write a successful MPhil essay or dissertation. A successful piece might, for instance, provide new arguments or develop original positions; it might synthesise existing ideas and arguments in interesting ways; or it might present new explorations, criticisms or analyses of extant ideas. It might be fairly wide-ranging, or narrowly focused.
Assessment will take into account the different ways in which work can be successful. Nevertheless there are criteria of excellence that are relevant to all MPhil writing, and which will be used in determining its mark:
(i) Breadth and depth of research. The piece will need to give an adequate coverage of its philosophical topic, including the relevant existing philosophical literature and demonstrate an adequate understanding of that literature. Adequacy here will depend on the nature of the topic. For example, it may be appropriate for an essay that is focused exclusively on a few recent articles to contain more depth, but less breadth, than an essay that is focused on a wider philosophical tradition. Similarly, the understanding that is required when the focus is on a notoriously difficult historical text will be different to that required when it is on a set of straightforward recent articles. The appropriate breadth and depth of research will also take into account the word limit for the piece, so that expectations are higher for a dissertation than a shorter essay.
(ii) Quality of argumentation. This depends on the precision and sophistication with which the central philosophical points made in the piece are understood, developed, and defended, the strength of the arguments or interpretations that are given, and the extent to which the piece considers and responds to pressing objections. The appropriate type of argumentation will depend on the type of essay; e.g. an essay that intervenes in a contemporary debate may require a different type of argumentation to that required in an essay in the history of philosophy.
(iii) Quality of philosophical writing: This depends on a piece's ability to convey its ideas effectively: it requires a thoughtful structure that accommodates both the complexities of the material and the needs of the reader. A well written piece will display clarity, concision and elegance.
(iv) Originality. Philosophical originality can be demonstrated in many ways: for example, by posing new questions; by exploring and developing new arguments (even if these do not ultimately work); by providing new criticisms of existing work; by structuring or synthesising existing work in new ways; by providing new and stimulating examples; or by opening up new avenues of philosophical inquiry e.g. an unexplored issue in the history of philosophy.
Of course these criteria are not entirely distinct: it is hard to write well in the absence of a good argument, and originality in the absence of understanding is rarely a virtue. But they are sufficiently distinct that a piece will sometimes shine with respect to one or two of them, whilst not being so successful with respect to the others; conversely, a piece may fail in virtue of one of these criteria, while being adequate with respect to the others.
In light of these criteria, essays and theses will be given marks as follows:
0: Unacceptable Fail
Work fails to contain anything of philosophical merit that is relevant to the question.
1–49: Low Fail
Work in this category will contain something of value, but is clearly deficient in all of the first three categories: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing.
50–56: Clear Fail
Work in this category will contain something of value, but is clearly inadequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing. There will be substantial failings in at least two of them.
57–9 Marginal Fail
Work in this category will contain something of value, but is marginally inadequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing. This may be the result of performance that is only just below the standard on all three, or because of a more substantial failing in one of them that is not sufficiently compensated by success with respect to the others.
60–64: Low Pass
Work in this category is adequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing. An essay can be adequate in terms of this overall balance, while being inadequate with respect to one of them.
65–69: Clear Pass
Work in this category is adequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing. In addition, it will show some strength on at least one of them.
70–74 High Pass
Work in this category is more than adequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing. In addition, it will show some strength on at least two of them, and may show some originality. It constitutes some evidence of potential for PhD work.
75–79: Distinction
Work in this category makes a contribution to research. It is strong in terms of the first three criteria, and will show some originality. It constitutes strong evidence of the potential for PhD work.
80 and above: High Distinction
Work in this category makes a significant contribution to research. It is outstanding in terms of all four criteria: the breadth and depth of research and understanding that is displayed, the quality of argumentation, the quality of writing, and it will exhibit significant originality. It will typically be of sufficient quality to form the basis of a publication. It constitutes very strong evidence of the potential for PhD work.
