Part B Mathematics and Philosophy Examination Conventions 2025-26

All Philosophy scripts and submitted work in Finals are marked independently by two markers.  The two markers discuss any difference between their marks, and endeavour to agree a mark.  Since USMs are always whole numbers, the agreed mark cannot in general be reached by `splitting the difference' between the two initial marks, e.g. two Philosophy markers whose marks for a given script are 67 and 68, cannot submit a mark of 67.5, but rather must determine an agreed mark that is either 67 or 68. A third marker marks the script or submitted work if the two original markers cannot agree a mark.

Qualitative description of examination performance in Philosophy

The standard of work for the various classes is specified in the following terms.

These terms employ positive criteria (marked by “+”) and negative criteria (marked by “-”) as a basis for assigning marks. Written work is taken to meet the criteria set out below if for the most part it satisfies the relevant descriptions. These descriptions are to be interpreted in light of what would be expected at the relevant undergraduate level rather than in absolute terms.

• Class I: 70--100

In order to encourage use of  a wider range of First Class marks, markers are asked to give First Class marks divisible by 3 as initial marks.  Agreed marks can be any marks within the First Class range, e.g. initial marks of 72 and 75 might result in an agreed mark of 74.

Upper: 84+

Exceptional answer displaying originality, outstanding analytical and argumentative skills, superior command of the facts and arguments relevant to the question, excellent organisation, and lucid and precise expression.

Middle: 78, 81

Excellent answer offering high-level analysis, independent and rigorous argument,  skilled handling of the facts and arguments relevant to the question, transparent organisation, and lucid and precise expression.

Lower: 72, 75

Strong answer displaying a high standard of analysis and argument, a thorough command of the facts and/or arguments relevant to the question, transparent organisation and clear language.

• Class II.1: 60--69

Upper: 65-69

+  Effective analysis and argumentation, thorough command of evidence, clarity of expression, transparent organisation of material.

-  Occasional imprecision in argumentation or expression; or lack of depth; or minor omissions; or lapses in focus.

Lower: 60-64

+  Well-structured answer offering a generally accurate analysis of central arguments and themes, and a well-reasoned conclusion.

-  Occasional lapses in argumentation; writing may be somewhat pedestrian or unclear or imprecise; some omissions or infelicity in organisation of material.

• Class II.2: 50--59

Upper: 55-59

+ Adequate, if somewhat basic, analysis and understanding of key concepts and arguments.

-  Significantly lacking  in scope, depth or precision; pat or pedestrian representation of thoughts and arguments; important inaccuracies or omissions; some lapses in argumentation.

Lower: 50-54

+  Answer showing a basic grasp of relevant material and arguments, and a fair attempt to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

-  Serious inaccuracies or omissions; significant lapses in argumentation (e.g. nonsequiturs, misuse of concepts or evidence); failure to digest material; minor irrelevance.

• Class III: 40--49

Upper: 45-49

+  Limited answer to the question; constructs a rudimentary argument; some evidence of relevant study.

-  Superficial or incomplete treatment; some gaps or mistakes in understanding  of key concepts and arguments; poor focus and organisation; some irrelevance.

Lower: 40-44

+ Significant elements of a basic and relevant answer.

-  Muddled argumentation, very superficial discussion with poor focus, significant misunderstanding of key concepts and arguments; considerable irrelevance; seriously incomplete answer.

• Pass: 30--39

+  Limited attempt to address question showing a rudimentary grasp of some relevant information.

-  Very incomplete, brief, or poorly organised answer; fundamental misunderstanding of key arguments or ideas; large portions of discussion irrelevant or tangential.

• Fail: 0--29

Upper: 15-29

+  Some slight evidence of a proper attempt to answer question; glimpse of relevant material.

-  Extremely limited and inadequate answer, for instance in note form; discussion mostly irrelevant.

Lower 0-14:

- Completely or almost completely irrelevant or ignorant answer. Nothing or almost nothing written.

Qualitative description of extended essay or thesis performance in Philosophy

• Class I: 70--100

In order to encourage use of a wider range of First Class marks, markers are asked to give First Class marks divisible by 3 as initial marks.  Agreed marks can be any marks within the First Class range, e.g. initial marks of 72 and 75 might result in an agreed mark of 74.

Upper: 84+

Exceptional work displaying originality, outstanding analytical and argumentative skills, superior command of a wide range of facts and arguments relevant to the question, excellent organisation and presentation, lucid and precise expression.

Middle: 78, 81

Excellent work offering high-level analysis, independent and rigorous argument, critical understanding of a wide range of relevant material, transparent organisation and presentation, lucid and precise expression. 

Lower: 72, 75

Strong work displaying a high standard of analysis and argument, critical insight, and a thorough command of the relevant material; transparent organisation and presentation; clear and precise expression.

• Class II.1: 60--69

Upper: 65-69

+  Effective analysis and argumentation, demonstrating thorough command of relevant material; transparent organisation and presentation of material; clarity of expression.
-  Occasional  imprecision in argumentation or expression; or lack of depth; or minor omissions; or lapses in focus.

Lower: 60-64

+ Clearly structured and generally coherent discussion, offering a mostly accurate analysis of central arguments and themes, and a justified conclusion.
-  Occasional lapses in argumentation; writing may be somewhat pedestrian or showing unclarity or imprecision of expression; some omissions or infelicity in organisation of material and/or presentation (e.g. missing or incomplete references, misquotations or misattributions).

• Class II.2: 50--59

Upper: 55-59

+  Adequate, if somewhat basic, analysis and understanding of key concepts and arguments; generally cogent and well-structured treatment of topic.
-  Lacking  in scope, depth or precision; pat or pedestrian representation of thoughts and arguments; important inaccuracies or omissions; some lapses in argumentation and/or presentation.

Lower: 50-54

+  Discussion showing a reasonable grasp of basic material and arguments, and a fair attempt to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.
-  Significant inaccuracies or omissions; major lapses in argumentation (e.g. nonsequiturs, misuse of concepts or evidence affecting overall conclusions); failure to digest material; minor irrelevance; sloppy presentation.

• Class III: 40--49

Upper: 45-49

+ Limited treatment of topic showing some familiarity with relevant material and arguments; recognisable structure. 
-  Superficial or incomplete treatment; gaps or mistakes in understanding  of key concepts and arguments; poor focus and organisation; some irrelevance; poor presentation.

Lower: 40-44

+ Significant elements of a basic and relevant answer showing some structure. 
-   Muddled argumentation, very superficial discussion with poor focus, significant misunderstanding of key concepts and arguments; considerable irrelevance; incomplete answer; substandard presentation.

• Pass: 30--39

+ Limited attempt to address question showing a basic grasp of some relevant material.
- Seriously incomplete answer; fundamental misunderstanding of key arguments or ideas; significant portions of discussion irrelevant or tangential; basic failures of organisation and presentation.

• Fail: 0--29

Upper: 15-29

+  Very limited attempt to answer question; some use of relevant material.
-  Wholly inadequate answer, discussion largely irrelevant; unacceptably poor organisation and/or presentation.

Lower:  0-14

- Completely or almost completely irrelevant or ignorant answer. A very short piece of work, providing no or negligible evidence of study.

Qualitative description of commentary work performance in Philosophy

• Class I: 70--85 (NB: marks above 85 are not awarded for translation work)

Upper: 80-100:

+ a commentary displaying in-depth knowledge of the passage, excellent analysis and criticism of the argument(s), distinction(s), or concept(s) found in the passage, a lucid and concise account of the relation of the passage to the wider context, or/and the whole work, or/and the author's general thought, or/and some problem in modern philosophy.

 Lower: 70-79

+ a commentary showing a good understanding of the immediate and wider context of the passage, lucid and concise analysis of the ideas and/or arguments involved, and clear and precise language.

• Class II.1: 60--69

Upper: 65-69

+ a commentary displaying a good understanding of the context and a clear and concise analysis of arguments, distinctions and/or concepts in the passage.\\
- limited command of some aspects of the passage, or context; minor lapses in the analysis of the argument, occasional unclarity in expression or use of concepts.

Lower: 60 to 64

+ a generally clear and satisfactory commentary, offering a mostly correct specification of the argumentative context and a reasonable analysis of the argument, distinction(s), or/and concepts of the passage.\\
- some lapses in argumentation and/or invoking evidence from the passage; some inaccuracy in identification of context; somewhat pedestrian, unclear, or imprecise expression.

• Class II.2: 50--59

+ a competent if basic commentary showing familiarity with the passage and its context; mostly clear and relevant analysis of passage; some attempt to offer a critical perspective.\\
- gives an incomplete account of the context of the passage; significant inaccuracies or gaps in analysing or criticising the argument of the passage; marred by lapses in concision, relevance, and lucidity of expression.

• Class III: 40--49

+ a commentary that contains evidence of some knowledge of relevant facts and analytical skill.\\
- generally weak, with confused or little specification of the context, or discussion and criticism of the argument of the passage; some irrelevance; muddled and unclear language. This class does qualify for an Honours degree.

• Pass: 30--39

+ some attempt to specify the argumentative context or/and content of the passage; occasionally relevant material.\\
- extremely limited and inadequate commentary; comments largely (but not entirely) irrelevant.

• Fail: 0--29

Completely, or almost completely, irrelevant or ignorant commentary; nothing, or almost nothing, written.

NB: Candidates should note that one of the commonest reasons for commentaries receiving poor marks is irrelevance.

Short weight
If a candidate answers fewer than the required number of questions, the overall mark will be

(n/N)A

where A is the mean average of the marks assigned to attempted questions, n is the number of questions attempted, and N is the number of questions required.

Rubric failure

If a candidate fails to obey a rubric expressing a condition stipulated in the Examination Regulations, the examiners may reduce the overall mark. In cases where the maximum number of questions that may be attempted in a given section, or on a given author, is N, and the candidate answers more than N questions in that section, or on that author, only the highest-scoring N answers attempted in that section, or on that author, will contribute to the overall mark.