6.2 How USMs are determined in Philosophy

Marking of Preliminary Examinations in Philosophy

All Philosophy scripts at Prelims are marked by a single marker, in line with the University's standard practice for the First Public Examination. In the event of a candidate being on the borderline for distinction or failure in the examination, the examiners will collectively arrange for a second reading where necessary, and in all cases for borderline fails.

Qualitative description of examination performance in the First Public Examination in Philosophy

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.

Distinction 100-70:
100-80
+ Answer displaying rigorous and independent thinking, a keen critical understanding of relevant material, transparent organisation and presentation, clear and precise expression, effective use of examples.
79-70
+ Answer demonstrating critical understanding of relevant material, transparent organisation and
presentation, clear and precise expression, effective use of examples.

Pass 69-40:
69 - 65
+ Generally effective analysis and argumentation, demonstrating a good grasp of relevant material; transparent organisation and presentation of material; general clarity of expression.
- Some infelicity in argumentation; analysis slightly lacking in depth or focus; or minor shortcomings in choice, organisation or presentation of material.
64-60
+ Well-structured and generally satisfactory discussion, offering a mostly correct analysis of the central arguments and themes.
- Some lapses in argumentation; somewhat pedestrian, unclear or imprecise writing; or deficiencies in choice or organisation of material.
59-50
+ A structured answer offering analysis of some key aspects of the question; evidence
of a good basic knowledge of relevant material.
- Incomplete answer to the question; significant lapses in argumentation or structure; poor presentation; significant gaps in knowledge of relevant material; and/or minor irrelevance.
49-40
+ Some evidence of knowledge of material relevant to question and of analytical or argumentative ability.
- Very limited answer; muddled argumentation; significant degree of irrelevance; and/or seriously flawed presentation.

Fail: 39-0
Generally, very poor quality work, showing little, if any, evidence of effective study or of analytical or argumentative skills; mostly, or wholly, irrelevant answer.
39-30
+ Some attempt to answer question; occasionally relevant material.
- Extremely limited and inadequate answer, for instance in note form; discussion largely (but not entirely) irrelevant.
29-0
Completely or almost completely irrelevant or ignorant answer; nothing or almost nothing written.

NB! Candidates should note that one of the commonest reasons for answers receiving poor marks is irrelevance. It is very important to direct your answer at the question which has actually been asked.

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.