UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
MPHIL IN PHILOSOPHY
2023/2024
These guidelines are in addition to the ‘Guide to Examiners and Assessors for the Degree of Master of Philosophy (one-year course)’ issued by the Board of Graduate Studies: https://www.student-registry.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/mphil_ad_stud_and_mres_examiners_guide_sept_2018.pdf
These guidelines mention only those issues that are not covered by the Guide, and explain how the Faculty of Philosophy implements the Guide, given the Special Regulations covering the MPhil in Philosophy. It should be noted in particular that the Board of Graduate Studies guidelines mention the possibility of an exam allowance for MPhil students, which normally comes into effect if a candidate has been, or is likely to be, unable to undertake part or all of their examination, or has failed part or all of it because of illness or other serious and unforeseen cause (such as serious illness of a close family member). See: https://www.cambridgestudents.cam.ac.uk/your-course/examinations/graduate-exam-information/after-examination/examination-allowances-graduate
The course structure is described here:
The dates for submission of titles and completed essays are specified in the schedule.
1. Minor amendments to titles may be approved by the MPhil Course Director up to the dates specified in the schedule.
2. Late submission will, except in exceptional circumstances, attract a penalty of 5 marks for every working day or a proportion of this for part of a day.
The MPhil marking criteria are here:
The Faculty’s data retention policy for MPhil examining data is here:
Marking of First Essay
1. Once first essay titles have been received, the Degree Committee appoints examiners on the recommendation of the MPhil Course Director.
2. Internal Examiners will be informed once essays have been submitted via Moodle. Examiners will also be sent report forms, a copy of these guidelines, the deadline for submitting marks and the time, date and location of the examiners’ meeting.
3. Each essay is read and marked by two internal examiners. Internal examiners will normally be members of the Faculty. Supervisors are disqualified from examining essays they have supervised. Internal examiners should not discuss the content of the essay with anyone else, or their proposed individual mark, until they have submitted their individual mark to the Postgraduate Secretary.
4. After the internal examiners have submitted their marks to the Postgraduate Secretary, they are invited to discuss their marks with their co-examiner in person or by phone, not be email. If, after discussion, agreement on a mark is reached, the initial marks and the agreed mark will be recorded. Relevant essays, together with internal marks and reports, are emailed to the external examiner for moderating, as specified below, The Role of the External Examiner, §1.
First Essay Examiners’ Meeting
1. All internal essay examiners are invited to the examiners’ meeting on the date specified in the schedule.
2. The external examiners’ written report is presented to the meeting.
3. In the light of this report marks are agreed.
4. In general, examiners do not participate in the discussion of marks of essays that they have supervised.
5. After the examiners' meeting candidates are informed of their agreed marks, subject to Degree Committee approval, and sent their examiners’ reports, except for those parts confidential to the examiners’ meeting/Degree Committee. They are offered the opportunity to consult their supervisor and/or the MPhil Course Director for further comments and feedback. After the conclusion of the examiners’ meeting, records of individual (raw) marks will be destroyed, and the Postgraduate Secretary will only transfer the agreed essay mark in each case onto the marks sheet. Records of confidential remarks made by examiners will also be destroyed.
January Degree Committee
1. The marks for the first MPhil essay are received by the Degree Committee at its first meeting of Lent Term.
Marking of Second Essay
1. The procedure is the same as for the first essay.
Second Essay Examiners’ Meeting
1. All internal essay examiners are invited to the examiners’ meeting on the date specified in the schedule. The external examiner is also invited to attend.
2. The external examiner’s written report is presented to the meeting.
3. In the light of this report marks are agreed for the second essay, and for the overall essay component mark. It should be noted that a failing mark in either essay is consistent with an overall pass in the degree, provided that the overall mark for the essay component is 60 or above; or that the overall mark for the essay component is within the range 57–59 and there is at least a Clear Pass, i.e. 65 or above, for the dissertation component.
Overall 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, upwards in the case of half marks.
4. In general, examiners do not participate in the discussion of marks of essays that they have supervised.
5. If the external examiner does not attend, all relevant paperwork will be forwarded
to him/her after the meeting and any comments s/he makes will be communicated to the Degree Committee.
6. After the examiners' meeting candidates are informed of their agreed marks, subject to Degree Committee approval, and sent their examiners’ reports, except for those parts confidential to the examiners’ meeting/Degree Committee. They are offered the opportunity to consult their supervisor and/or the MPhil Course Director for further comments and feedback. At the same time candidates are informed of their overall essay mark and what mark they need to achieve in order to pass the MPhil. After the conclusion of the examiners’ meeting, records of individual (raw) marks will be destroyed, and the Postgraduate Secretary will only transfer the agreed essay mark in each case onto the marks sheet. Records of confidential remarks made by examiners will also be destroyed.
May Degree Committee
1. The marks for the second MPhil essay, and the overall essay mark, are received by the Degree Committee at its first meeting of Easter Term.
2. At this meeting, the Degree Committee may decide that a candidate whose combined essay marks constitute a Fail not be permitted to submit a dissertation, if in the Committee’s view, on the advice of the examiners, the mark falls below that of Marginal Fail.
3. The Degree Committee appoints internal examiners for the dissertation, the first named being the convenor. It is the responsibility of the convenor to arrange a convenient date, time and location for the oral examination.
Submission and Marking of Dissertation, Vivas
1. Dissertations are submitted by the date specified in the schedule.
2. Each dissertation is read and marked by two internal examiners. Supervisors are disqualified from examining dissertations they have supervised.
3. Dissertations are forwarded to examiners together with report forms, the deadline for submitting marks and the time, date and location of the examiners’ meeting. Convenors also receive an examiners’ certificate and mark sheet, to be completed after the oral examination.
4. MPhil candidates will have an oral examination, on a date to be arranged with them by the examiners, usually in the week following submission of their dissertation. (The examiners may in exceptional circumstances waive the oral examination, but candidates must not assume that they will.) The oral examination will usually concentrate on the dissertation, but it may also include questions on the general field of knowledge in which it falls. Other examiners, or the external examiner, may in addition attend the Oral, but this is not usual.
In cases where the marks given to the dissertation by the two examiners prior to the oral examination are significantly different, one purpose of this part of the process is to help them to come, if possible, to an agreed mark. The primary purpose of the oral examination, however, is one which applies even when the two examiners are in agreement, namely to test the depth of the candidate’s understanding of the issues discussed in the dissertation and its surroundings. The examiners may decide to move their mark up or down after the oral to the extent that the information that they glean during it affects their judgment as to the strengths and weaknesses of the dissertation. For instance, the candidate may persuade them during the oral that objections to the argument of the dissertation which they had formulated while reading it are not valid; in such a case they may move their marks up. Or the candidate may show during the oral an ignorance of relevant literature and a failure to respond to objections which persuades the examiners that a principle of charity which they had applied in reaching their marks was not warranted; in such a case they may move their marks down. Only in exceptional circumstances, however, should their post-oral agreed mark be more than 5 marks outside the range of their pre-oral marks.
5. Each of the internal examiners is required to submit an independent report prior to the oral, and the two examiners together are required to submit a joint report and an agreed mark, if possible, for the dissertation after the oral examination has taken place.
6. The external examiner will be presented with relevant dissertations, internal marks and reports for moderating, as specified below, The Role of the External Examiner § 1.
June Dissertation Examiners’ Meeting
1. All dissertation examiners are invited to the dissertation examiners’ meeting on the date specified in the schedule, when marks for MPhil dissertations and overall marks for each candidate are agreed.
2. The external examiner is required to be present at this meeting.
3. In general, examiners do not participate in the discussion of marks of theses that they have supervised.
4. The examiners make their recommendation for the award of the Matthew Buncombe prize. Here are the rules as they appear in the Statutes and Ordnances:
- The sums subscribed by Dr Teresa Clay and others in memory of Matthew Buncombe, MA, PhD, of Trinity College, shall form a fund the income of which shall be used to provide a prize called the Matthew Buncombe Prize.
- The Prize shall be awarded each year by the Degree Committee for the Faculty of Philosophy, on the recommendation of the Examiners for the examination in Philosophy for the MPhil Degree (one-year course), for the best overall performance in that examination.
- The Prize shall not be divided between more than two candidates.
- The value of the Prize shall be the annual income of the Fund.
- If in any year the Prize is not awarded the income for that year shall be added to the capital of the Fund.
5. All examiners must sign the mark sheet.
July Degree Committee Meeting
1. At its July meeting the Degree Committee receives the marks for the MPhil dissertations and the overall mark for each candidate.
2. The Degree Committee considers the recommendations of the MPhil Examiners and where the appropriate conditions are met, awards the MPhil degree.
3. The report of the external examiner is received at the next meeting of the Degree Committee (i.e. in mid-October).
4. The Degree Committee considers the examiners’ recommendation for the award of the Matthew Buncombe prize.
5. Following the Degree Committee, the agreed marks and approvals/failures are entered on CamSIS and an electronic version of the results is sent to the Student Registry for verification purposes.
6. MPhil candidates will be sent the appropriate formal letter (MPhil approval/2nd MPhil approval/MPhil non-approval) as soon as possible after the Degree Committee meeting. In a separate letter they will also be told their agreed dissertation marks and will be sent their examiners’ reports. After the conclusion of the examiners’ meeting, records of individual (raw) marks will be destroyed, and the Postgraduate Secretary will only transfer the agreed dissertation mark in each case onto the marks sheet. Records of confidential remarks made by examiners will also be destroyed.
The Role of the External Examiner
The external examiner will be invited to discuss with the MPhil Course Director how the moderating role will be conducted. But the general framework will be as follows:
1. Before each examiners’ meeting, the external examiner will be sent by email the essays or dissertations that the internal examiners would like him/her to consider, along with internal marks and reports. The external examiner will be asked to consider those essays and dissertations where (i) the examiners can agree on a mark but the difference between the raw marks is 8 or more; or (ii) the internal examiners are unable to agree a mark that lies between their individual marks; or (iii) the mark agreed by the internal examiners is less than 60; or (iv) the MPhil Course Director thinks it is appropriate for any other reason. To assist the external examiner in cases (i) and (ii), internal examiners produce a brief statement for the reasons for their recommended mark, or for any significant continued disagreement. In addition, in the first year that he/she examines, the external examiner will be invited to sample all the essays and dissertations, paying particular attention to those receiving borderline marks.
2. The external examiner is not required to attend the examiners’ meetings for the essays but should provide a written report.
3. The external examiner is required to attend the final examiners’ meeting at which the marks for the dissertations are agreed and recommendations for the award of the degree are made.
Degree Committee Meetings
The recommendations of the MPhil Examiners are circulated to the members of the Degree Committee, who vote on proposals for the award of marks and the award of the degree. At the Degree Committee, it is the convention that the supervisor and the examiners may vote — provided, of course, that they are members of the Committee. As with all other votes on proposals to grant degrees, the numbers voting for and against must be recorded. Where results are not straightforward, the chair should include the reasons for the recommendation of the Committee in the minutes.
