Marking criteria
Each essay will be marked by a first maker and a second marker. In addition, our external examiners examine a wide range of pieces of coursework to ensure equal application of the marking criteria by different markers and across the MA programmes. These criteria will also be applied when assessing the work of disabled students (including those with dyslexia), on the assumption that they receive prior learning support. Students who think they might qualify for support should refer to the Disability Statement in this handbook for further information.
80-100%
High Distinction
Originality and intellectual independence:
• Intellectual independence, when grounded in a mature consideration of available evidence, will be awarded a high first class mark (80+), especially in cases where the answer develops ideas that are original and is structured in a way that enables the writer to develop independent lines of thought.
• In comparison to lower first-class examples, the structure and logical flow of the argument are exceptionally smooth. The candidate provides a profound engagement with the relevant historiography.
• Engages to a high standard with primary sources and is largely based on original or reinterpreted primary source material, and/or, makes an original and significant contribution a historiographical debate
• A high first class essay possesses all the qualities of work of distinction level, but performed to an exceptional standard in most area, and demonstrates the potential for publication.
• These criteria are in addition to those described below for work meriting a 70-79% Distinction
70-79%
Distinction
Structure, focus and style:
• The answer engages closely with the question set and shows a critical understanding of its wider implications.
• The structure of the answer facilitates a coherent and convincing argument.
• Descriptive material and factual evidence is used to support and develop the writer’s argument, and is deployed with attention to relevance and an appropriate economy of expression.
• Engages to a high standard with primary source material
• The candidate demonstrates an advanced command of critical vocabulary and the rules of grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation
• References (including quotations, footnotes and the bibliography) are immaculately presented.
Quality of argument and expression:
• The writing is clear, fluent, and accurate. The vocabulary and concepts used are appropriate to the case being developed.
• The answer does more than paraphrase other scholars’ ideas and demonstrates a conceptual understanding of the historical/ cultural/ literary (and, where appropriate, historiographical) issues at stake.
Range of knowledge:
• Relevant knowledge is both broad and deep. This includes knowledge of relevant contemporary sources and modern scholarship. The range of reading implied by the answer is extensive.
• The answer demonstrates a clear understanding of the relevant issues.
• The candidate shows an ability to move between generalization and detailed discussion, and can synthesize as well as particularize.
• The candidate is able to evaluate the nature and status of information at his or her disposal, and where necessary can identify contradiction and attempt a resolution.
• The answer demonstrates an informed and confident understanding of the historical period or periods/literary texts under discussion.
60-69%
Merit
Structure, focus and style:
• The answer displays an understanding of the question and makes a serious attempt to engage with it.
• The structure of the answer facilitates a clear development of the candidate’s argument; however, towards the lower end of the class candidates may not sustain an analytical approach throughout.
• Descriptive material and factual evidence are deployed as relevant. Low 2:i answers are less effective at explaining the argumentative implications of evidence cited.
• The candidate demonstrates an accurate command of critical vocabulary and the rules of grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation.
• References (including quotations, footnotes and bibliography) are accurately presented.
Quality of argument and expression:
• The writing is clear and generally accurate, and demonstrates an understanding of the concepts used by scholars.
• The answer deploys other scholars’ ideas and shows an appreciation of the extent to which historical/cultural/literary explanations are contested.
• Although the answer may not demonstrate real originality, the candidate presents ideas with a degree of intellectual independence, and demonstrates an ability to reflect on the relevant issues.
Range of knowledge:
• Knowledge is extensive and includes reference to appropriate contemporary sources and modern scholarship. The range of reading implied by the answer is considerable.
• Candidate engages with some primary sources
• The answer reveals a sense of the nature of relevant issues.
• The candidate shows an ability to move between generalization and detailed discussion, although there may be a tendency toward either an over-generalized or an over-particularized response.
• Candidates reflect on the nature and status of information at their disposal, and seek to use it critically.
• The answer demonstrates a secure understanding of the historical period or periods/literary texts under discussion.
50-59%
Pass
Structure, focus and style:
• The answer displays some understanding of the question set, but may lack a sustained focus and may show only a modest understanding of the question’s wider implications.
• The structure of the answer may be heavily influenced by the material at the writer’s disposal rather than by the requirements of the question set. Ideas may be stated rather than developed.
• Descriptive material and factual evidence are deployed, but not necessarily with the kind of critical reflections characteristic of answers in higher classes. Primary sources are not necessarily used.
• Demonstrates an adequate command of critical vocabulary and the rules of grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation
• References (including quotations, footnotes and bibliography) largely presented accurately, but may include some inconsistencies.
Quality of argument and expression:
• The writing is sufficiently accurate to convey the writer’s meaning clearly, but it may lack fluency and qualities of critical analysis. In places expression may be clumsy.
• The answer shows some understanding of scholars’ ideas, but may fail to reflect critically upon them. The problematic nature of historical/cultural/literary explanations may be imperfectly understood.
• The answer is unlikely to show originality in approach or argument, and may tend towards the assertion of essentially derivative ideas.
Range of knowledge:
• Knowledge is significant, but may be limited and patchy. There may be some inaccuracy but basic knowledge is sound. The range of reading implied by the answer is limited.
• The answer shows some limited awareness of the relevant issues.
• The candidate may be prone to being drawn into excessive narrative or mere description, and may want to display knowledge without reference to the precise requirements of the question.
• Information may be used rather uncritically, without serious attempts to evaluate its status and significance.
• The answer demonstrates some appreciation of the nature of the historical period or periods/literary texts under discussion.
0-49%
Fail
Structure, focus and style:
• The answer displays little understanding of the question, and the candidate may tend to write indiscriminately around the question.
• The answer has a structure but this may be underdeveloped, and the argument may be incomplete and unfold in a haphazard or undisciplined manner.
• Some descriptive material and factual evidence is deployed, but without any critical reflection on its significance and relevance.
• References (including quotations, footnotes and bibliography) are poorly presented and lack important information.
Quality of argument and expression:
• The writing is generally grammatically correct, but it lacks the analytical sophistication to construct an argument of any complexity. In places the writing may lack clarity of expression.
• There is little appreciation of the problematic or contested nature of the relevant issues.
• The answer shows no intentional originality of approach.
Range of knowledge:
• There is sufficient knowledge to frame a basic answer to the question, but it is limited and patchy. There is some inaccuracy, but adequate material is present to frame a rudimentary answer to the question. The answer implies relevant reading but that this is slight in range.
• There is an understanding of historical change, where relevant, but it is underdeveloped, and the ideas of scholars may be muddled or misrepresented.
• There is an argument, but the candidate may be prone to excessive narrative, and the argument may be signposted by bald assertion rather than informed generalizations.
• There is sufficient information to launch an answer, but perhaps not to sustain a complete response. Information is used uncritically as if always self-explanatory.
• The answer will demonstrate appreciation of the nature of the historical period or periods/literary texts under discussion, but at rudimentary level.
30-39%
Compensated Fail
Structure, focus and style:
• The answer displays a lack of understanding of the question.
• The answer is very poorly structured and lacks a clear narrative.
• Some factual evidence is presented, but it is inaccurate and/or irrelevant.
Quality of argument and expression:
• The writing is not coherent and may be in the form of disjointed sentences.
• The candidate appears insufficiently competent to develop an argument.
• There is no appreciation of the contested nature of the relevant issues.
Range of knowledge
• There is insufficient knowledge to frame an answer to the question.
0-29% Fail No evidence of understanding or knowledge. A completely inadequate or incompetent response in all the above categories.
Within this range it may be helpful to differentiate between answers that
– show a minimal effort and may be of some length (20-29)
– are very short and vague, involving guesswork rather than knowledge (10-19)
– constitute not more than a few words of dubious relevance (0-9
What did ordinary Germans in the Third Reich know about the Holocaust, and why does it matter to historians?