Examination Conventions 2026-27

Written examination Qualitative Descriptors

Assessors setting questions should be asked to provide complete model solutions indicating everything that a candidate would be expected to write to answer the question fully.  The model solutions and marking scheme need to be sufficiently clear and comprehensive to be meaningful to an external examiner.  Those setting questions should be aware that solutions may be released to students in the future. 

The model solution for each question should be accompanied by a marking scheme out of 25.  The marking scheme should aim to ensure that the following qualitative criteria hold (see also the class descriptors given in appendix K):

20-25 marks A completely, or almost completely, correct answer, showing excellent understanding of the concepts and skill in carrying through the arguments and/or calculations; minor slips or omissions only.

13-19 marks A good though not complete answer, showing understanding of the concepts and competence in handling the arguments and/or calculations, and some evidence of problem-solving ability. Such an answer might consist of an excellent answer to a substantial part of the question, or a good answer to the whole question which nevertheless shows some flaws in calculation or in understanding or in both..

7-12 marks Standard material has been substantially and correctly answered with some possible minor progress on to other parts of the question.

0-6 marks Some progress has been made with elementary, accessible material.

Assessors should classify the parts of each question under the headings: 

B1: bookwork material: explicitly seen before;
B2: routine material: easily synthesized from material explicitly seen before;
S: similar to material seen before;
N: new rider, demanding good command of concepts and/or methods.

Mini-Projects Qualitative Descriptors

Mini-projects will be assessed with reference to the following qualitative descriptors.

70–100   The candidate has demonstrated an excellent understanding of almost all of the material covered with a commensurate quality of presentation and has completed almost all of the assignment satisfactorily, further subdivided by:

90–100 The candidate has shown considerable originality and insight going well beyond the straightfor­ward completion of the task set.

80–89 The work submitted shows a near-perfect completion of the task at hand, but does not meet the additional requirements above, or does but has some defects in presentation.

70–79 The work submitted is of a generally high order, but may have minor errors in content and/or deficiencies in presentation.

60–69 The candidate has demonstrated a good or very good understanding of much of the material, and has completed most of the assignment satisfactorily, without showing the level of excellence expected of the above USM range.

50–59 The candidate has demonstrated an adequate understanding of the material and an adequate ability to apply their understanding, without showing the level of understanding expected of the above USM range.

40–49 The work submitted, while sufficient in quantity, suffers from sufficient defects to show a lack of adequate understanding or ability to apply results.

30–39 The candidate, while attempting a significant part of the mini-project, has displayed a very limited knowledge or understanding at the level required.

0–29   The candidate has either attempted only a fragment of the mini-project or has shown an   inadequate grasp of basic material.

 

Dissertations Qualitative Descriptors

Dissertations will be assessed with reference to the following qualitative descriptors.

90–100 Work of potentially publishable standard, as evidenced by originality or insight. The work should show depth and accuracy, and should have a clear focus. It is likely to go beyond the normal MSc level. The standard one sees in winners of one of the examination prizes.

80–89 Work in this range will be at the level of a strong candidate for a DPhil applicant. The project will be an easy choice as a winner of a college essay prize. It will have depth, accuracy and a clear focus. It will show a strong command of material at least at the MSc level. It is likely to contain original material, which may take the form of new mathematical propositions, new examples, or new calculations, for example.

70–79 The work submitted is of a generally high order, with depth, clarity and accuracy, but may have minor errors in content and/or deficiencies in presentation. It may contain original material, at least in the sense of new examples or calculations.

60–69 The candidate shows a good grasp of their subject, but without the command and clarity required for first class marks. Presentation, referencing and bibliography should be good, and the mathematics should have no more than minor errors.

50–59 The work shows an adequate grasp of the subject, but is likely to be marred by having material at too low a level, by serious or frequent errors, a high proportion of indiscriminate information, or poor presentation and references 

40–49 The candidate shows reasonable understanding of parts of the basic material, but reveals an inadequate competence with others. The material may be at too low a level. There are likely to be high levels of error or irrelevance, muddled or superficial ideas, or very poor writing style.

30–39 The candidate shows some limited grasp of at least part of the material.

0–29   Little evidence of understanding of the topic. The work is likely to show major misunderstanding and confusion.