Print this chapterPrint this chapter

MSc Mathematical and Computational Finance (2025-2026 Entry)

7. Examinations and Assessments

7.3. Examination Conventions

Examination conventions are the formal record of the specific assessment standards for the course or courses to which they apply. They set out how examined work will be marked and how the resulting marks will be used to arrive at a final result and classification of an award. This section sets out the examination conventions for the M.Sc. in Mathematical and Computational Finance for the academic year 2025-26. These examination conventions are approved annually by the Supervisory Committee for the MSc. in Mathematical and Computational Finance and by the Graduate Studies Committee in the Mathematical Institute. The Board of Examiners may only make minor deviations from these conventions in exceptional circumstances and only after the consent of the Proctors. This document is in all ways subsidiary to the current

  • Examination Regulations;
  • Policy and Guidance for Examiners and others involved in the University Examinations
7.3.1 Examiners

A Board of Examiners is appointed, consisting of five members of the Mathematics Faculty (one of whom serves as Chair of Examiners), and one External Examiner. For 2025-26 the Board of Examiners is as follows: Prof Hanqing Jin (Chair), Prof Sam Cohen, Prof Blanka Horvath, Dr Leandro Sánchez-Betancourt, Dr Nazem Khan and Prof Luitgard Veraart (External Examiner - LSE). Assessors are appointed to assist the Examiners with marking. These Assessors are usually members of the Mathematics Faculty. Candidates should not, under any circumstances, seek to contact individual internal or external examiners. If you are unhappy with an aspect of your assessment you may make a complaint or appeal (see section 11).

7.3.2 Assessment Criteria

The assessment of coursework and examinations in the programme, using the mark scheme indicated below, is based upon recognition of the following qualities:

Knowledge and Understanding

  • Range and depth in knowledge of mathematical techniques of analysis of use in finance covered in the course
  • Appropriate selection of techniques for the analysis of finance problems and a knowledge of the
    limitations and strengths of models and techniques deployed

Argument and Reasoning

  • Command of analytical skills appropriate for the study of finance
  • Logical exposition and reasoning
  • Clarity, completeness and concise expression in mathematical analysis

Presentation and Deployment

  • Clear demonstration of the benefit of mathematical analysis of finance in argument
  • Clarity in written (non-mathematical) exposition
  • Appropriate deployment of literature
7.3.3 Examination Assessment Components

The examination for the MSc in Mathematical and Computational Finance is comprised of three main assessment components. The numbers of exam questions set for each course are as follows:

  • 16-hour courses: 3 questions set, 2 to be attempted.
  • 8-hour core courses: 2 questions set, 1 to be attempted.
  • 8-hour elective courses: 1 question set for each course with a choice between courses in the examination

Assessment Component One is comprised of examination Papers A, B, C, and D.

  • Paper A (Stochastic Calculus and Financial Derivatives): 3-hour paper-based examination which is sat in Week 0 of Hilary Term. Will be sat as a closed-book, in person examination.
  • Paper B (Numerical Methods): 1.5-hour paper-based examination which is sat in Week 0 of Hilary Term. Will be sat as a closed-book, in person examination.
  • Paper C (Fixed Income and Credit, Stochastic Control, and Quantitative Risk Management): 3-hour paper-based examination which is sat in Week -1 of Trinity Term. Will be sat as a closed- book, in person examination.
  • Paper D (Elective Papers): 2-hour paper-based examination which is sat in Week -1 of Trinity Term. Will be sat as a closed-book, in person examination.

For the overall USM, each in person examination is weighted according to the number of question attempts required. That is: Paper A has weight 4/13, Paper B has weight 2/13, Paper C has weight 4/13, Paper D has weight 3/13.

Assessment Component Two is comprised of two computing assessments and two take-home projects. Candidates are expected to complete all the following assessments

  • Financial Computing with C++ Part I: will be assessed by a 3-hour computer-based practical exam, sat on Friday of Week 0 of Hilary Term. Online examination.
  • Financial Computing with C++ Part II: will be assessed by a 3-hour computer-based practical exam, sat on Friday of Week 8 of Hilary Term. Online examination.
  • Statistics and Financial Data Analysis will be assessed as a take-home project in Week 9 of Michaelmas Term
  • Deep Learning will be assessed as a take-home project in Week 10 of Hilary Term

The overall USM for assessment component two is calculated via an equal weighting of each component.

Assessment Component Three is comprised of the dissertation.

  • Dissertation: The dissertation will be written during Trinity Term on a topic chosen in consultation with a departmental supervisor or an industry partner. It should be no more than 40 pages long and should contain material which, although not necessarily original research, cannot be found elsewhere. Credit will be given for the mathematical and financial content, as well as the clarity of the writing. Please note that examiners and assessors will be under no obligation to assess any work that exceeds the 40-page limit of the dissertation. More details will be provided in the dissertation guidance.
7.3.4 Marking Conventions

In Oxford, the word ‘examination’ often refers to the ensemble of assessments (written examinations, dissertations etc.) which, taken together, determine the final result in the MSc. The examination for the MSc in Mathematical and Computational Finance is comprised of the following components:

  • written paper-based examinations,
  • financial computing practical examinations,
  • take-home projects,
  • dissertation.

Performance on assessed parts of the course is reported as a University Standardised Mark (USM), a number between 0 and 100. For MSc courses, a USM of less than 50 is a failing mark, a USM between 65 and 69 is a merit, while one of 70 or more is a Distinction mark. Raw marks may be turned into USMs by scaling, which is sometimes necessary to ensure all papers are fairly and equally rewarded. In all cases, the examiners will use their academic judgement to check that appropriate USMs are awarded.
Students can access Examiners reports (including external examiners reports) on the course website at
https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/members/students/postgraduate-courses/msc-mcf/examination-and- assessment-new

7.3.5 Criteria for USMs: written examinations

The USM for each written examination is determined by a scaling applied to the raw marks.

70-100: Marks in this range indicate excellent skills in reasoning, and problem-solving, together with an excellent knowledge of the material, and the ability to use it in unfamiliar contexts. There will be minor errors and omissions only. USMs at the top end of the range indicate that all answers were essentially perfect.

60-69: Marks in this range indicate good or very good skills in reasoning and problem-solving, with a good or very good knowledge of much of the material. Not all parts of every question will have been answered fully or correctly.

50-59: Marks in this range indicate adequate basic skills in reasoning and problem-solving, with a sound knowledge of a reasonable part of the material. Substantial parts of some questions may have been unanswered or answered incorrectly.

45-49: Marks in this range indicate understanding of only part of the basic material and only restricted problem-solving skills. Although there may be a few good answers, the great majority of answers will contain errors in calculations and/or show incomplete understanding of the topics.

40-44: Marks in this range indicate only very limited grasp of basic material over a very restricted range of topics, but with large gaps in understanding and insufficient coverage of the material as a whole.

0-39: Marks in this range indicate inadequate grasp of the basic material. The work is likely to show major misunderstanding and confusion, and/or inaccurate calculations; the answers to most of the questions attempted are likely to be fragmentary only.

7.3.6 Criteria for USMs: dissertations and take-home projects

90-100: Marks in this band indicate remarkable ability and extraordinary insights; the presentation and clarity of exposition of the work are exceptional. Dissertations in this band will be worthy of publication and will contain novel results, the project goes far beyond the material of the lecture course.

80-89: marks in this band are excellent, showing thorough knowledge and understanding of the topic and including the candidate’s own original insights and interpretations. Presentation is very good. The project goes beyond the material of the lecture course.

70-79: Dissertations and projects in this band are very good, well thought-out pieces of work with no major deficiencies, and with no significant deficiencies in presentation or clarity of exposition. They will show a thorough understanding of the topic.

60-69: Dissertations and projects in this band may be good pieces of work with few deficiencies in content or presentation, but not significantly extending the material covered in the course; or they may have novel elements but also suffer from deficiencies in content, understanding, structure or presentation that prevent them from being of distinction level.

50-59: Dissertations and projects in this band are of acceptable quality but have weaknesses in content, understanding, structure or presentation.

40-49: Dissertations and projects in this band are not of acceptable quality and have significant weaknesses in content, understanding, structure or presentation. A major revision might raise the work to above a pass level.

0-39: This band indicates unacceptably poor work, showing extremely limited understanding of the topic covered and/or unacceptably poor presentation.

7.3.7 Overall Assessment

In order to make an overall assessment the individual assessments are grouped into three assessment components (as above). The overall USM is calculated as the weighted average of the three USMs obtained for the three individual assessment components based on the following weights:

  • Assessment component one (Examinations): 45%
  • Assessment component two (C++ and Take-Homes): 25%
  • Assessment component three (Dissertation): 30%

The final result is one of Distinction, Merit, Pass or Fail. The criteria for each result are described below.

7.3.8 Criteria for a Distinction

Distinctions are awarded when a candidate shows excellent problem-solving skills and excellent knowledge of the material over a wide range of topics; is able to use that knowledge innovatively and/or in unfamiliar contexts; and is able to produce a substantial piece of work for the dissertation. A candidate will be eligible for a Distinction if they fulfil the following criteria:

  • an overall USM of 70 or above;
  • USMs no less than 67 on each assessment component.
  • This is their first attempt at the examination.

Please note that candidates who have previously failed and are taking the examinations for a second time may not be considered for a Distinction.

7.3.9 Criteria for a Merit

The Merit is awarded for very good quality work throughout the course. Very good problem-solving skills and knowledge over a wide range of topics, or excellent command of some material and good or very good command of the rest.

Please note that candidates who have previously failed and are taking the examinations for a second time may not be considered for a Merit.
Candidates will receive a Merit if they do not meet the criteria for a Distinction, but the following criteria are met:

  • an overall USM of 65 or above;
  • USMs no less than 50 on each assessment component.
  • This is their first attempt at the examination.
7.3.10 Criteria for a Pass

The pass covers a wide range of results from candidates who show adequate knowledge of most of the material, to candidates who show good knowledge of much of the material over a wide range of topics.
Candidates will receive a Pass if they do not meet the criteria for a Distinction or Merit, but the following criteria are met:

  • an overall USM of 50 or above;
  • USMs no less than 45 on each assessment component.
7.3.11 Criteria for a Fail

Candidates fail when they show inadequate grasp of the basic material. The work is likely to be inadequate in scope or coverage and/or to show major misunderstanding and confusion, and/or inaccurate calculations.
A candidate’s work will be classified as a Fail if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

  • the overall USM is less than 50;
  • USMs on one or more individual assessment component are less than 45.

Candidates who fail may retake the examinations on one further occasion, normally within one year. In such cases, the examiners specify which parts of the examination need to be retaken. Candidates retaking the examinations may not be considered for a Distinction or Merit.

7.3.12 Criteria for classification: Flowchart

Let U be the overall USM, and M the minimum USMs on Assessment component One, Two and Three. The classification rules above can be determined using the following flowchart.

7.3.13 Verification and Reconciliation of Marks

For papers without a model solution, each script/item of work will be marked independently by two examiners or assessors (sometimes referred to as ’double-blind marking’). Each assessor will propose a mark; if the two marks do not differ by more than 10, the final mark will usually be the average of the two marks (rounded up to the nearest whole mark if necessary). However, if the marks are on opposite sides of the pass/fail borderline or differ by more than 10 marks reconciliation will take place where the assessors will try to reach a decision on a final mark. If reconciliation is difficult, a third marker will act as an arbiter in agreeing the appropriate mark. For papers for which there is a model solution and marking scheme approved by the examiners, each script is marked by an examiner or assessor, and then checked independently to ensure that all parts have been marked and the marks and part-marks have been correctly totalled and recorded.

7.3.14 Scaling

If scaling is used, scaling will not be used as a mechanistic process, but as one in which the examiners will use their academic judgement to ensure that appropriate classifications are awarded.

7.3.15 Examination Conduct

Students will receive advice from the examiners before their first examination in the form of a Notice to Candidates. This notice provides information on the conduct of the examinations including practical arrangements and procedures in the case of illegible or incomplete scripts and illness.

7.3.16 Penalties for Non-Attendance

Rules governing non-attendance at examinations and any consequent penalties are set out in full in the Examination Regulations (Regulations for the Conduct of University Examinations, Part 14). If a student will be prevented by illness or other urgent cause from attending one of their examinations they should contact their college office or college advisor as soon as possible. Any case of non-attendance at an examination involving illness or other medical condition will require written medical evidence and will usually be referred by the college to the Proctors.

If the Proctors do not believe there are satisfactory reasons for non-attendance, or an application to the Proctors has not been submitted, a candidate will be awarded a mark of zero for that examination. The mark for any resit of the examination will be capped at pass. Such a resit is only available once to candidates who initially fail the whole M.Sc. course.

7.3.17 Penalties for Late Submission of Open Book Examination Solutions

For any open book examinations, Candidates should upload their submission within the time allowed for their open-book examination. Candidates who access the paper later than the published start time (and who do not have an agreed alternative start time) will still need to finish and submit their work within the originally published timeframe or be considered to have submitted late. Candidates who access the paper on time but who submit their work after the published timeframe will also be considered to have submitted late.

Where candidates submit their examination after the end of the specified timeframe and believe they have a good reason for doing so, they must complete the Online Exams Help form and attach the missing exam response files. More details can be found on this page:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/exams/problems-completing-your-assessment

Table 5: Late Open-Book Submission Tariff

Lateness Cumulative Penalty
Any time after the deadline Fail Mark

7.3.18 Penalties for Late or Non-Submission of Coursework

The Examination Regulations stipulate specific dates for submission of dissertations and mini-projects. Rules governing late submission and any consequent penalties are set out in full in the Part 14 Late Submission, Non-submission, Non-appearance and Withdrawal from Examinations subsection of the Regulations for the Conduct of University Examinations section of the Examination Regulations 2024/25.

If you will be prevented by illness or other urgent cause from submitting your coursework on time you should contact your college office or college tutor as soon as possible. Your college is able to submit an application for an extension of time to the Proctors on your behalf. The scale of penalties agreed by the board of examiners in relation to late submissions of assessed coursework is set out below.

Table 6: Late Submission Tariff

Lateness Cumulative Penalty
Up to 4 hours, i.e. up to Monday 4pm 1 %
4–24 hours, i.e. up to Tuesday 12 noon 10%
24–48 hours, i.e. up to Weds 12 noon 20%
48–72 hours, i.e. up to Thurs 12 noon 30%
72–96 hours, i.e. up to Fri 12 noon 35%
96 hours - 14 days 35%
More than 14 days late Fail

Note: The penalty will be a percentage reduction of the maximum total mark available for the work. For example, if a 10% penalty is applied to an assessment given a USM out of 100 then 10 marks would be deducted. The final mark awarded after application of the penalty cannot be below 0.

Failure to submit a required element of assessment will result in the failure of the whole of the assessment. The mark for any resit of the assessment will be capped at a pass.

Such a resit is only available once to candidates who initially fail the whole M.Sc. course.

7.3.19 Dissertation Overlength Penalties

The final dissertation should be 25 - 40 pages in length. The examiners will enforce the page limit and dissertations submitted which exceed the page limit will be subject to penalties as defined below:

Table 7: Penalties for overlength of Dissertation

Length of dissertation Penalty (USMs)
41-42 pages 1
43-45 pages 5
46-50 pages 10
50 pages or more 20

One of the purposes of the page limit is to prevent excessive inclusion of material that is un-necessary for development of the key argument(s) of the dissertation. Further information (e.g. detailed calculations, more detailed data) may be included in appendices. However, whilst examiners are required to consider the main body of the dissertation, whether they read appendices is entirely at their discretion.

7.3.20 Penalties for Poor Academic Practice

The Examination Board shall deal wholly with cases of poor academic practice where the material under review is small and does not exceed 10% of the whole.

Assessors should mark work on its academic merit with the board responsible for deducting marks for derivative or poor referencing.

Determined by the extent of poor academic practice, the board shall deduct between 1% up to 10% of the marks available for cases of poor referencing where material is widely available factual information or a technical description that could not be paraphrased easily; where passage(s) draw on a variety of sources, either verbatim or derivative, in patchwork fashion (and examiners consider that this represents poor academic practice rather than an attempt to deceive); where some attempt has been made to provide references, however incomplete (e.g. footnotes but no quotation marks, Harvard-style references at the end of a paragraph, inclusion in bibliography); or where passage(s) are ’grey literature’ i.e. a web source with no clear owner.

If a student has previously had marks deducted for poor academic practice or has been referred to the Proctors for suspected plagiarism the case must always be referred to the Proctors. In addition, any more serious cases of poor academic practice than described above will be referred to the Proctors.

7.3.21 Alternative Examination Arrangements and Mitigating Circumstances Notices to Examiners

A candidate in any University Examination with specific learning difficulties or disability/illness may apply through the Senior Tutor of their college for alternative examination arrangements relating to their condition. For further information on the process please see https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/exams/arrangements

Candidates who would like the examiners to be aware of any factors that may have affected their performance before or during an examination are advised to discuss their circumstances with their college and consult the Examination Regulations (Part 13). Candidates should complete the form entitled mitigating circumstances notices to examiners and send this to their college with appropriate supporting material. The candidate’s college will submit the application for forwarding to the relevant Chair of Examiners. A candidate’s final outcome will first be considered using the classification rules as described above in Section 5.3.8. The exam board will then consider any further information they have on individual circumstances. The board of examiners will use the following procedure for the consideration of medical and other special circumstances transmitted to them via the Examinations and Assessments Section:

a) A subset of the board will meet to discuss the individual applications and band the seriousness of each application on a scale of 1–3 with 1 indicating minor impact, 2 indicating moderate impact, and 3 indicating very serious impact. When reaching this decision, examiners will take into consideration the severity and relevance of the circumstances, and the strength of the evidence. Examiners will also note whether all or a subset of papers were affected, being aware that it is possible for circumstances to have different levels of impact on different papers.

b) The banding information will be used at the final board of examiners meeting to adjudicate on the merits of candidates;

c) A brief, formal record will be kept confirming (i) the fact that information about special circumstances has been considered by the examiners, (ii) how that information has been considered, and (iii) the outcome of the consideration with the reasons for the decisions reached.

Further information on how to submit Mitigating Circumstances Notices to Examiners is available at
https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/exams/in-person-exams.
Some examples of mitigating circumstances that may have impacted on a student’s performance in an examination or during the preparation of coursework include acute illness or unforeseen circumstances such as a traffic accident or bereavement.

7.3.22 Plagiarism

All the assessors for the course will be alert to the possibility of plagiarism in written reports. If an assessor, or a Turnitin report generated in the course of examination procedures, raises concerns about the proper attribution of a passage or piece of submitted work, the matter will be reported to the Chair of Examiners. If the extent of the material affected is a small proportion of the whole (usually under 10%), this will be dealt with by the board of examiners. More serious cases will be referred to the Proctors. Where the Chair finds that the matter can be dealt with by the Board, assessors will mark the work on its academic merits. The Board will then deduct marks for derivative or poorly referenced work. Boards are free to operate marks deductions of between 1 and 10% (maximum) of the marks available for that particular piece of work. When students take an open book exam, they will be required to sign up to an ‘honour code’. This will confirm that they have understood and abided by the University’s rules on plagiarism and collusion (see
https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/exams/open-book/honour-code)

7.3.24 Resits

A student who fails the MSc in Mathematical and Computational Finance course may resit on one, but no more than one, subsequent occasion. This resit attempt shall normally be taken at the next opportunity, but may be deferred once, i.e. it must be taken at one of the next two opportunities. In such a case, a student will not be eligible for a distinction or merit on the whole course. The candidate will only be allowed to resit the failed exams (USM <50) within the specific assessment components they have failed.

A candidate who resits a unit for which a technical fail mark was originally awarded (a unit for which no work was submitted or a written examination was missed) will have the mark for that unit capped at a pass.

No student who has satisfied the examiners in the examination may enter again for the same examination. If a student fails one particular unit, there is no provision for the candidate to resit that unit during the same academic year.

Where a course is no longer being offered in the year of the resit, the Examiners will be responsible for arranging provisions. For more information, please see Part 14 of the Examination Regulations.