dissertation marks

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

How to survive marking dissertations

About a decade ago I clearly remember a colleague and I negotiating marks for a dissertation. And he browbeat me into awarding a higher mark (and therefore degree classification) than I felt was deserved. It's stuck with me – I can even remember the student's name. I should have stuck to my guns and agreed to put it to a third marker.

The whole business of dissertation marking is a fascinating and all too human process. On the face of it, awarding marks should be a predominantly objective procedure. There are assessment and grade criteria, specific headings that students know they need to deliver against – are the aims and objectives clear and tracked through? Does the literature review provide good coverage of existing sources relevant to the dissertation topic? Are the adopted methods explained, appropriate and justified? Does it read well and look 'the biz'?

So in the next few weeks colleagues – including myself – will be hit by a tidal wave of incoming final year undergraduate dissertations. Often these are worth two module credits and can disproportionately weigh in the balance when it comes to determining a final degree award. Typically dissertations are blind double marked. So that each marker judges the work independently and only then discusses with a colleague, the definitive mark to be awarded. At this point there are three outcomes – first, markers are of one mind and agree; second, they pace around like fencers, land a few good arguments and, again, reach a settlement. Third, they disagree so dramatically about the quality of the work and its mark that it must go to a third marker.

How do such divisions arise? There are various reasons: the dissertation adviser will likely have formed a working relationship with the student, and it may be difficult to disentangle things like effort from achievement. Related to this is the fact that where a second marker criticises a submission, the adviser/first marker may not only feel (partly) responsible, but can become defensive as they blur boundaries between marking student work and being drawn in to assessing their own inputs and advice. The key point here is to stick to the evidence and, in particular, to focus on major points such as good literature coverage but very limited primary research; clear articulation and delivery of aims and objectives.

Then there is 'power play'. In my experience the vast majority of cases of mark negotiation are cordial, professional and straightforward. But occasionally you find yourself discussing with a colleague who is determined to 'have their way'. Equally – with substantial numbers of dissertations to assess - you may find yourself uncomfortably at the edge of your known world in terms of expertise. This in turn may lead to overly lenient or punitive marking.

So what to do?

Try to start marking as soon as the dissertations are distributed for marking and – just like student dissertation writers – do a little and often. Personally – whether as a marker or external examiner – I can't cope with more than about four dissertations a day. Beyond which it's hard to know which way is up.

Over about 18 years I have learned that it takes me about 1.5 hours to read a dissertation and write up a report on it. I (and colleagues) use a template with headings such as 'abstract', 'literature review', 'methodology', 'findings and discussion', 'conclusions' (and recommendations where relevant), quality of bibliography and appendices and so on. This helps to ensure that negotiations review the same aspects and sections.

Try to hone in on key points – see the wood for the trees; don't get fixated on every jot and tittle. Is it a good read? Is it professionally turned out? Does it do what it says on the tin – title matches aims and objectives, that then inform methods, that deliver persuasive findings and lead up to reasoned conclusions, that link back to starting objectives?

Remember it's the piece of work you are marking, not the student overall; nor the fact that they worked very hard at it or are delightful. What you see is what they get.

Be clear about whether or not you are allowed to give an agreed mark to the student prior to exam board consideration. At my institution we are not allowed to do this; so we email qualitative feedback that gives a clear nod as to how the wind is blowing. Here's an extract from 2011: "Overall this is an excellent piece of research. Very well done…A beautifully and meticulously presented piece of work that demonstrated an excellent level of endeavour and research. Strengths of your work aside from the clear and methodical layout include…Areas that could be improved…" So, what was the mark? You guessed - a first class 70%+ piece of work.

Double markers should try to agree a mark otherwise it creates more work for another colleague as third marker. But if it does go to a third person, be clear about the procedure – is their decision 'final'? Do the disagreeing colleagues mutually agree a third marker? Or is it the module/course leader that does this? There also needs to be a written trail so that, for example, an external examiner can see how two staff diverged, and how the third decided on the given mark.

Colleagues may like to read my article : Shall we dance? The importance of staff-student relationships to undergraduate dissertation preparation in the journal Active Learning in Higher Education Volume 12 Issue 2, July 2011.

James Derounian is a principal lecturer in community development and local governance and National Teaching Fellow, University of Gloucestershire

• Universities
• Professional development
• Higher education

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Dissertation Structure & Layout 101: How to structure your dissertation, thesis or research project.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | July 2019

So, you’ve got a decent understanding of what a dissertation is , you’ve chosen your topic and hopefully you’ve received approval for your research proposal . Awesome! Now its time to start the actual dissertation or thesis writing journey.

To craft a high-quality document, the very first thing you need to understand is dissertation structure . In this post, we’ll walk you through the generic dissertation structure and layout, step by step. We’ll start with the big picture, and then zoom into each chapter to briefly discuss the core contents. If you’re just starting out on your research journey, you should start with this post, which covers the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis .

*The Caveat *

In this post, we’ll be discussing a traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout, which is generally used for social science research across universities, whether in the US, UK, Europe or Australia. However, some universities may have small variations on this structure (extra chapters, merged chapters, slightly different ordering, etc).

So, always check with your university if they have a prescribed structure or layout that they expect you to work with. If not, it’s safe to assume the structure we’ll discuss here is suitable. And even if they do have a prescribed structure, you’ll still get value from this post as we’ll explain the core contents of each section.  

Overview: S tructuring a dissertation or thesis

• Acknowledgements page
• Abstract (or executive summary)
• Table of contents , list of figures and tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature review
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Results
• Chapter 5: Discussion
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Reference list

As I mentioned, some universities will have slight variations on this structure. For example, they want an additional “personal reflection chapter”, or they might prefer the results and discussion chapter to be merged into one. Regardless, the overarching flow will always be the same, as this flow reflects the research process , which we discussed here – i.e.:

• The introduction chapter presents the core research question and aims .
• The literature review chapter assesses what the current research says about this question.
• The methodology, results and discussion chapters go about undertaking new research about this question.
• The conclusion chapter (attempts to) answer the core research question .

In other words, the dissertation structure and layout reflect the research process of asking a well-defined question(s), investigating, and then answering the question – see below.

To restate that – the structure and layout of a dissertation reflect the flow of the overall research process . This is essential to understand, as each chapter will make a lot more sense if you “get” this concept. If you’re not familiar with the research process, read this post before going further.

Right. Now that we’ve covered the big picture, let’s dive a little deeper into the details of each section and chapter. Oh and by the way, you can also grab our free dissertation/thesis template here to help speed things up.

The title page of your dissertation is the very first impression the marker will get of your work, so it pays to invest some time thinking about your title. But what makes for a good title? A strong title needs to be 3 things:

• Succinct (not overly lengthy or verbose)
• Specific (not vague or ambiguous)
• Representative of the research you’re undertaking (clearly linked to your research questions)

Typically, a good title includes mention of the following:

• The broader area of the research (i.e. the overarching topic)
• The specific focus of your research (i.e. your specific context)
• Indication of research design (e.g. quantitative , qualitative , or  mixed methods ).

For example:

A quantitative investigation [research design] into the antecedents of organisational trust [broader area] in the UK retail forex trading market [specific context/area of focus].

Again, some universities may have specific requirements regarding the format and structure of the title, so it’s worth double-checking expectations with your institution (if there’s no mention in the brief or study material).

Acknowledgements

This page provides you with an opportunity to say thank you to those who helped you along your research journey. Generally, it’s optional (and won’t count towards your marks), but it is academic best practice to include this.

So, who do you say thanks to? Well, there’s no prescribed requirements, but it’s common to mention the following people:

• Your dissertation supervisor or committee.
• Any professors, lecturers or academics that helped you understand the topic or methodologies.
• Any tutors, mentors or advisors.
• Your family and friends, especially spouse (for adult learners studying part-time).

There’s no need for lengthy rambling. Just state who you’re thankful to and for what (e.g. thank you to my supervisor, John Doe, for his endless patience and attentiveness) – be sincere. In terms of length, you should keep this to a page or less.

Abstract or executive summary

The dissertation abstract (or executive summary for some degrees) serves to provide the first-time reader (and marker or moderator) with a big-picture view of your research project. It should give them an understanding of the key insights and findings from the research, without them needing to read the rest of the report – in other words, it should be able to stand alone .

For it to stand alone, your abstract should cover the following key points (at a minimum):

• Your research questions and aims – what key question(s) did your research aim to answer?
• Your methodology – how did you go about investigating the topic and finding answers to your research question(s)?
• Your findings – following your own research, what did do you discover?
• Your conclusions – based on your findings, what conclusions did you draw? What answers did you find to your research question(s)?

So, in much the same way the dissertation structure mimics the research process, your abstract or executive summary should reflect the research process, from the initial stage of asking the original question to the final stage of answering that question.

In practical terms, it’s a good idea to write this section up last , once all your core chapters are complete. Otherwise, you’ll end up writing and rewriting this section multiple times (just wasting time). For a step by step guide on how to write a strong executive summary, check out this post .

Need a helping hand?

Table of contents

This section is straightforward. You’ll typically present your table of contents (TOC) first, followed by the two lists – figures and tables. I recommend that you use Microsoft Word’s automatic table of contents generator to generate your TOC. If you’re not familiar with this functionality, the video below explains it simply:

If you find that your table of contents is overly lengthy, consider removing one level of depth. Oftentimes, this can be done without detracting from the usefulness of the TOC.

Right, now that the “admin” sections are out of the way, its time to move on to your core chapters. These chapters are the heart of your dissertation and are where you’ll earn the marks. The first chapter is the introduction chapter – as you would expect, this is the time to introduce your research…

It’s important to understand that even though you’ve provided an overview of your research in your abstract, your introduction needs to be written as if the reader has not read that (remember, the abstract is essentially a standalone document). So, your introduction chapter needs to start from the very beginning, and should address the following questions:

• What will you be investigating (in plain-language, big picture-level)?
• Why is that worth investigating? How is it important to academia or business? How is it sufficiently original?
• What are your research aims and research question(s)? Note that the research questions can sometimes be presented at the end of the literature review (next chapter).
• What is the scope of your study? In other words, what will and won’t you cover ?
• How will you approach your research? In other words, what methodology will you adopt?
• How will you structure your dissertation? What are the core chapters and what will you do in each of them?

These are just the bare basic requirements for your intro chapter. Some universities will want additional bells and whistles in the intro chapter, so be sure to carefully read your brief or consult your research supervisor.

If done right, your introduction chapter will set a clear direction for the rest of your dissertation. Specifically, it will make it clear to the reader (and marker) exactly what you’ll be investigating, why that’s important, and how you’ll be going about the investigation. Conversely, if your introduction chapter leaves a first-time reader wondering what exactly you’ll be researching, you’ve still got some work to do.

Now that you’ve set a clear direction with your introduction chapter, the next step is the literature review . In this section, you will analyse the existing research (typically academic journal articles and high-quality industry publications), with a view to understanding the following questions:

• What does the literature currently say about the topic you’re investigating?
• Is the literature lacking or well established? Is it divided or in disagreement?
• How does your research fit into the bigger picture?
• How does your research contribute something original?
• How does the methodology of previous studies help you develop your own?

Depending on the nature of your study, you may also present a conceptual framework towards the end of your literature review, which you will then test in your actual research.

Again, some universities will want you to focus on some of these areas more than others, some will have additional or fewer requirements, and so on. Therefore, as always, its important to review your brief and/or discuss with your supervisor, so that you know exactly what’s expected of your literature review chapter.

Now that you’ve investigated the current state of knowledge in your literature review chapter and are familiar with the existing key theories, models and frameworks, its time to design your own research. Enter the methodology chapter – the most “science-ey” of the chapters…

In this chapter, you need to address two critical questions:

• Exactly HOW will you carry out your research (i.e. what is your intended research design)?
• Exactly WHY have you chosen to do things this way (i.e. how do you justify your design)?

Remember, the dissertation part of your degree is first and foremost about developing and demonstrating research skills . Therefore, the markers want to see that you know which methods to use, can clearly articulate why you’ve chosen then, and know how to deploy them effectively.

Importantly, this chapter requires detail – don’t hold back on the specifics. State exactly what you’ll be doing, with who, when, for how long, etc. Moreover, for every design choice you make, make sure you justify it.

In practice, you will likely end up coming back to this chapter once you’ve undertaken all your data collection and analysis, and revise it based on changes you made during the analysis phase. This is perfectly fine. Its natural for you to add an additional analysis technique, scrap an old one, etc based on where your data lead you. Of course, I’m talking about small changes here – not a fundamental switch from qualitative to quantitative, which will likely send your supervisor in a spin!

You’ve now collected your data and undertaken your analysis, whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. In this chapter, you’ll present the raw results of your analysis . For example, in the case of a quant study, you’ll present the demographic data, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics , etc.

Typically, Chapter 4 is simply a presentation and description of the data, not a discussion of the meaning of the data. In other words, it’s descriptive, rather than analytical – the meaning is discussed in Chapter 5. However, some universities will want you to combine chapters 4 and 5, so that you both present and interpret the meaning of the data at the same time. Check with your institution what their preference is.

Now that you’ve presented the data analysis results, its time to interpret and analyse them. In other words, its time to discuss what they mean, especially in relation to your research question(s).

What you discuss here will depend largely on your chosen methodology. For example, if you’ve gone the quantitative route, you might discuss the relationships between variables . If you’ve gone the qualitative route, you might discuss key themes and the meanings thereof. It all depends on what your research design choices were.

Most importantly, you need to discuss your results in relation to your research questions and aims, as well as the existing literature. What do the results tell you about your research questions? Are they aligned with the existing research or at odds? If so, why might this be? Dig deep into your findings and explain what the findings suggest, in plain English.

The final chapter – you’ve made it! Now that you’ve discussed your interpretation of the results, its time to bring it back to the beginning with the conclusion chapter . In other words, its time to (attempt to) answer your original research question s (from way back in chapter 1). Clearly state what your conclusions are in terms of your research questions. This might feel a bit repetitive, as you would have touched on this in the previous chapter, but its important to bring the discussion full circle and explicitly state your answer(s) to the research question(s).

Next, you’ll typically discuss the implications of your findings? In other words, you’ve answered your research questions – but what does this mean for the real world (or even for academia)? What should now be done differently, given the new insight you’ve generated?

Lastly, you should discuss the limitations of your research, as well as what this means for future research in the area. No study is perfect, especially not a Masters-level. Discuss the shortcomings of your research. Perhaps your methodology was limited, perhaps your sample size was small or not representative, etc, etc. Don’t be afraid to critique your work – the markers want to see that you can identify the limitations of your work. This is a strength, not a weakness. Be brutal!

This marks the end of your core chapters – woohoo! From here on out, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

The reference list is straightforward. It should contain a list of all resources cited in your dissertation, in the required format, e.g. APA , Harvard, etc.

It’s essential that you use reference management software for your dissertation. Do NOT try handle your referencing manually – its far too error prone. On a reference list of multiple pages, you’re going to make mistake. To this end, I suggest considering either Mendeley or Zotero. Both are free and provide a very straightforward interface to ensure that your referencing is 100% on point. I’ve included a simple how-to video for the Mendeley software (my personal favourite) below:

Some universities may ask you to include a bibliography, as opposed to a reference list. These two things are not the same . A bibliography is similar to a reference list, except that it also includes resources which informed your thinking but were not directly cited in your dissertation. So, double-check your brief and make sure you use the right one.

The very last piece of the puzzle is the appendix or set of appendices. This is where you’ll include any supporting data and evidence. Importantly, supporting is the keyword here.

Your appendices should provide additional “nice to know”, depth-adding information, which is not critical to the core analysis. Appendices should not be used as a way to cut down word count (see this post which covers how to reduce word count ). In other words, don’t place content that is critical to the core analysis here, just to save word count. You will not earn marks on any content in the appendices, so don’t try to play the system!

Time to recap…

And there you have it – the traditional dissertation structure and layout, from A-Z. To recap, the core structure for a dissertation or thesis is (typically) as follows:

• Acknowledgments page

Most importantly, the core chapters should reflect the research process (asking, investigating and answering your research question). Moreover, the research question(s) should form the golden thread throughout your dissertation structure. Everything should revolve around the research questions, and as you’ve seen, they should form both the start point (i.e. introduction chapter) and the endpoint (i.e. conclusion chapter).

I hope this post has provided you with clarity about the traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a comment below, or feel free to get in touch with us. Also, be sure to check out the rest of the  Grad Coach Blog .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

36 Comments

many thanks i found it very useful

Glad to hear that, Arun. Good luck writing your dissertation.

Such clear practical logical advice. I very much needed to read this to keep me focused in stead of fretting.. Perfect now ready to start my research!

what about scientific fields like computer or engineering thesis what is the difference in the structure? thank you very much

Thanks so much this helped me a lot!

Very helpful and accessible. What I like most is how practical the advice is along with helpful tools/ links.

Thanks Ade!

Thank you so much sir.. It was really helpful..

You’re welcome!

Hi! How many words maximum should contain the abstract?

Thank you so much 😊 Find this at the right moment

You’re most welcome. Good luck with your dissertation.

best ever benefit i got on right time thank you

Many times Clarity and vision of destination of dissertation is what makes the difference between good ,average and great researchers the same way a great automobile driver is fast with clarity of address and Clear weather conditions .

I guess Great researcher = great ideas + knowledge + great and fast data collection and modeling + great writing + high clarity on all these

You have given immense clarity from start to end.

Morning. Where will I write the definitions of what I’m referring to in my report?

Thank you so much Derek, I was almost lost! Thanks a tonnnn! Have a great day!

Thanks ! so concise and valuable

This was very helpful. Clear and concise. I know exactly what to do now.

Thank you for allowing me to go through briefly. I hope to find time to continue.

Really useful to me. Thanks a thousand times

Very interesting! It will definitely set me and many more for success. highly recommended.

Thank you soo much sir, for the opportunity to express my skills

Usefull, thanks a lot. Really clear

Very nice and easy to understand. Thank you .

That was incredibly useful. Thanks Grad Coach Crew!

My stress level just dropped at least 15 points after watching this. Just starting my thesis for my grad program and I feel a lot more capable now! Thanks for such a clear and helpful video, Emma and the GradCoach team!

Do we need to mention the number of words the dissertation contains in the main document?

It depends on your university’s requirements, so it would be best to check with them 🙂

Such a helpful post to help me get started with structuring my masters dissertation, thank you!

Great video; I appreciate that helpful information

It is so necessary or avital course

This blog is very informative for my research. Thank you

Doctoral students are required to fill out the National Research Council’s Survey of Earned Doctorates

wow this is an amazing gain in my life

This is so good

How can i arrange my specific objectives in my dissertation?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

What Is a Dissertation? | 5 Essential Questions to Get Started

Published on 26 March 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on 5 May 2022.

A dissertation is a large research project undertaken at the end of a degree. It involves in-depth consideration of a problem or question chosen by the student. It is usually the largest (and final) piece of written work produced during a degree.

The length and structure of a dissertation vary widely depending on the level and field of study. However, there are some key questions that can help you understand the requirements and get started on your dissertation project.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

When and why do you have to write a dissertation, who will supervise your dissertation, what type of research will you do, how should your dissertation be structured, what formatting and referencing rules do you have to follow, frequently asked questions about dissertations.

A dissertation, sometimes called a thesis, comes at the end of an undergraduate or postgraduate degree. It is a larger project than the other essays you’ve written, requiring a higher word count and a greater depth of research.

You’ll generally work on your dissertation during the final year of your degree, over a longer period than you would take for a standard essay . For example, the dissertation might be your main focus for the last six months of your degree.

Why is the dissertation important?

The dissertation is a test of your capacity for independent research. You are given a lot of autonomy in writing your dissertation: you come up with your own ideas, conduct your own research, and write and structure the text by yourself.

This means that it is an important preparation for your future, whether you continue in academia or not: it teaches you to manage your own time, generate original ideas, and work independently.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

During the planning and writing of your dissertation, you’ll work with a supervisor from your department. The supervisor’s job is to give you feedback and advice throughout the process.

The dissertation supervisor is often assigned by the department, but you might be allowed to indicate preferences or approach potential supervisors. If so, try to pick someone who is familiar with your chosen topic, whom you get along with on a personal level, and whose feedback you’ve found useful in the past.

How will your supervisor help you?

Your supervisor is there to guide you through the dissertation project, but you’re still working independently. They can give feedback on your ideas, but not come up with ideas for you.

You may need to take the initiative to request an initial meeting with your supervisor. Then you can plan out your future meetings and set reasonable deadlines for things like completion of data collection, a structure outline, a first chapter, a first draft, and so on.

Make sure to prepare in advance for your meetings. Formulate your ideas as fully as you can, and determine where exactly you’re having difficulties so you can ask your supervisor for specific advice.

Your approach to your dissertation will vary depending on your field of study. The first thing to consider is whether you will do empirical research , which involves collecting original data, or non-empirical research , which involves analysing sources.

Empirical dissertations (sciences)

An empirical dissertation focuses on collecting and analysing original data. You’ll usually write this type of dissertation if you are studying a subject in the sciences or social sciences.

• What are airline workers’ attitudes towards the challenges posed for their industry by climate change?
• How effective is cognitive behavioural therapy in treating depression in young adults?
• What are the short-term health effects of switching from smoking cigarettes to e-cigarettes?

There are many different empirical research methods you can use to answer these questions – for example, experiments , observations, surveys , and interviews.

When doing empirical research, you need to consider things like the variables you will investigate, the reliability and validity of your measurements, and your sampling method . The aim is to produce robust, reproducible scientific knowledge.

Non-empirical dissertations (arts and humanities)

A non-empirical dissertation works with existing research or other texts, presenting original analysis, critique and argumentation, but no original data. This approach is typical of arts and humanities subjects.

• What attitudes did commentators in the British press take towards the French Revolution in 1789–1792?
• How do the themes of gender and inheritance intersect in Shakespeare’s Macbeth ?
• How did Plato’s Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia influence nineteenth century utopian socialist thought?

The first steps in this type of dissertation are to decide on your topic and begin collecting your primary and secondary sources .

Primary sources are the direct objects of your research. They give you first-hand evidence about your subject. Examples of primary sources include novels, artworks and historical documents.

Secondary sources provide information that informs your analysis. They describe, interpret, or evaluate information from primary sources. For example, you might consider previous analyses of the novel or author you are working on, or theoretical texts that you plan to apply to your primary sources.

Dissertations are divided into chapters and sections. Empirical dissertations usually follow a standard structure, while non-empirical dissertations are more flexible.

Structure of an empirical dissertation

Empirical dissertations generally include these chapters:

• Introduction : An explanation of your topic and the research question(s) you want to answer.
• Literature review : A survey and evaluation of previous research on your topic.
• Methodology : An explanation of how you collected and analysed your data.
• Results : A brief description of what you found.
• Discussion : Interpretation of what these results reveal.
• Conclusion : Answers to your research question(s) and summary of what your findings contribute to knowledge in your field.

Sometimes the order or naming of chapters might be slightly different, but all of the above information must be included in order to produce thorough, valid scientific research.

Other dissertation structures

If your dissertation doesn’t involve data collection, your structure is more flexible. You can think of it like an extended essay – the text should be logically organised in a way that serves your argument:

• Introduction: An explanation of your topic and the question(s) you want to answer.
• Main body: The development of your analysis, usually divided into 2–4 chapters.
• Conclusion: Answers to your research question(s) and summary of what your analysis contributes to knowledge in your field.

The chapters of the main body can be organised around different themes, time periods, or texts. Below you can see some example structures for dissertations in different subjects.

• Political philosophy

This example, on the topic of the British press’s coverage of the French Revolution, shows how you might structure each chapter around a specific theme.

This example, on the topic of Plato’s and More’s influences on utopian socialist thought, shows a different approach to dividing the chapters by theme.

This example, a master’s dissertation on the topic of how writers respond to persecution, shows how you can also use section headings within each chapter. Each of the three chapters deals with a specific text, while the sections are organised thematically.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Like other academic texts, it’s important that your dissertation follows the formatting guidelines set out by your university. You can lose marks unnecessarily over mistakes, so it’s worth taking the time to get all these elements right.

Formatting guidelines concern things like:

• line spacing
• page numbers
• punctuation
• title pages
• presentation of tables and figures

If you’re unsure about the formatting requirements, check with your supervisor or department. You can lose marks unnecessarily over mistakes, so it’s worth taking the time to get all these elements right.

How will you reference your sources?

Referencing means properly listing the sources you cite and refer to in your dissertation, so that the reader can find them. This avoids plagiarism by acknowledging where you’ve used the work of others.

Keep track of everything you read as you prepare your dissertation. The key information to note down for a reference is:

• The publication date
• Page numbers for the parts you refer to (especially when using direct quotes)

Different referencing styles each have their own specific rules for how to reference. The most commonly used styles in UK universities are listed below.

You can use the free APA Reference Generator to automatically create and store your references.

APA Reference Generator

The words ‘ dissertation ’ and ‘thesis’ both refer to a large written research project undertaken to complete a degree, but they are used differently depending on the country:

• In the UK, you write a dissertation at the end of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and you write a thesis to complete a PhD.
• In the US, it’s the other way around: you may write a thesis at the end of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and you write a dissertation to complete a PhD.

The main difference is in terms of scale – a dissertation is usually much longer than the other essays you complete during your degree.

Another key difference is that you are given much more independence when working on a dissertation. You choose your own dissertation topic , and you have to conduct the research and write the dissertation yourself (with some assistance from your supervisor).

Dissertation word counts vary widely across different fields, institutions, and levels of education:

• An undergraduate dissertation is typically 8,000–15,000 words
• A master’s dissertation is typically 12,000–50,000 words
• A PhD thesis is typically book-length: 70,000–100,000 words

However, none of these are strict guidelines – your word count may be lower or higher than the numbers stated here. Always check the guidelines provided by your university to determine how long your own dissertation should be.

At the bachelor’s and master’s levels, the dissertation is usually the main focus of your final year. You might work on it (alongside other classes) for the entirety of the final year, or for the last six months. This includes formulating an idea, doing the research, and writing up.

A PhD thesis takes a longer time, as the thesis is the main focus of the degree. A PhD thesis might be being formulated and worked on for the whole four years of the degree program. The writing process alone can take around 18 months.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2022, May 05). What Is a Dissertation? | 5 Essential Questions to Get Started. Scribbr. Retrieved 29 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/what-is-a-dissertation/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples.

Browser does not support script.

We use cookies on this site. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. Close this message Find out more

• Find your course
• The Principal
• Our experts
• Our history
• Facts & figures
• Art Collections & Picture Gallery
• Exhibitions
• Online shop
• Organisation of the College
• Charitable status
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research degrees
• Scholarships
• Accommodation
• Guide for parents
• Schools & colleges
• Lifelong learning
• Passport Award
• Discover Arts
• Discover Science
• Careers & Employability
• Departments and Schools
• Biological Sciences
• Comparative Literature & Culture
• Computer Science
• Drama,Theatre & Dance
• Earth Sciences
• Electronic Engineering
• European Studies
• Information Security
• Liberal Arts
• Mathematics
• Modern Languages, Literatures & Cultures
• Politics & International Relations
• Professional Studies
• Social Work
• Student life
• Campus & facilities
• Social life
• Royal Holloway and Me
• What our students say
• Student media
• Students' Union
• Active lifestyle & sport
• Volunteering
• Support, health & welfare
• Jobs while you study
• Sustainability
• International
• Why Royal Holloway?
• English language & university preparation
• Study abroad & exchanges
• Immigration & visas
• Your country
• Fees & scholarships
• After applying
• Support for international students
• Information for agents
• Virtual Open Day
• Current research
• Doctoral School
• Impact case studies
• Research support
• Funding opportunities
• Departments & Groups
• Pure support
• Commercialisation seed funds
• Research data management
• For business
• The Institute for Cyber Security Innovation
• Conferences & hospitality
• Consultancy
• Enterprise centre / incubation
• Licensing / commercialisation
• Research & business
• Recruiting our students
• Proof of award
• Get involved
• Benefits & services
• Events & reunions
• Higher magazine
• Why support the College?
• Our priorities
• A gift in your will
• American Foundation
• Tax efficient giving

Dissertation - Marking Criteria

The text below is an extract from the MSc handbook for students

Each dissertation is independently marked by two examiners; one of these is normally the supervisor. An external examiner moderates the assessment. The examiners may conduct an oral examination if they wish to check the depth of the student's understanding and to ensure that the dissertation is the student's own work. Students must obtain a pass grade on the dissertation to pass the MSc degree. The examiners give up to 100 points where the points translate to the following categories:

85 − 100:   An exceptionally high level of understanding and outstanding  research potential.

70 − 84.99:   Very high competence and excellent research potential.

60 − 69.99:   Evidence of some creativity and independence of thought.

50 − 59.99:   Sound understanding of the literature, but lack of accuracy or originality.

0 − 49.99:   Insufficient or no understanding of the topic, poor quality of work.  

The points are given according to the following guidelines:

Knowledge of subject (25)

21 − 25:   Deep understanding and near-comprehensive knowledge.

18 − 20:   Deep understanding.

15 − 17:   Very good understanding.

12 − 14:   Sound knowledge of relevant information.

10 − 11:   Basic understanding of the main issues.

0 − 9:   Little or no understanding of the main issues.

Organisation of material (25)

21 − 25:   Of publishable quality.

18 − 20:   Arguments clearly constructed; material very well-organised.

15 − 17:   Well-organised; aims met with no significant errors or omissions.

12 − 14:   Coherent and competent organisation.

10 − 11:   Lack of clarity in written presentation or aims only partially met.

6 − 9:   Major flaws in arguments; aims of project not met.

0 − 5:   Arguments are missing/deficient. Disorganised or fragmentary.

Originality, interpretation and analysis   (20)

17 − 20:   Significant originality in the interpretation and/or analysis;  project aims challenging.

14 − 16:   Some originality; evidence of excellent analytical and problem- solving skills.

12 − 13:   Good attempt to interpret and analyse existing literature.

10 − 11:   Minor flaws in interpretation/analysis of existing literature.

5 − 9:   Poor interpretation/analysis or project aims too simple.

0 − 4: Little or no interpretation or analysis; project aims trivial.

Evidence of reading (10)

8 − 10:   Independent reading including research papers.

6 − 7:    Good use of outside reading.

4 − 5:    Some evidence of outside reading.

0 − 3:    Little or no evidence of outside reading.  

Bibliography and referencing   (10)

9 − 10:   Of publishable quality.

7 − 8:    Good referencing and bibliography.

5 − 6:     Either poor bibliography or poor referencing.

3 − 4:    Poor bibliography and little or no referencing.

0 − 2:    No bibliography and little or no referencing.

Style, spelling, punctuation and grammar (10)

9 − 10:   Incisive and fluent, no errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

7 − 8:    Very minor errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

4 − 6:    Some errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

0 − 3:    Many errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

Find your Mathematics course

• Mathematical Studies BSc
• Mathematics BSc
• Mathematics MSci
• Mathematics and Management BSc
• Mathematics and Music BA
• Mathematics and Physics BSc
• Mathematics and Physics MSci
• Mathematics with French BSc
• Mathematics with German BSc
• Mathematics with Italian BSc
• Mathematics with Management BSc
• Mathematics with Philosophy BSc
• Mathematics with Spanish BSc
• Mathematics with Statistics BSc
• Computer Science and Mathematics BSc
• Economics and Mathematics BSc
• Economics and Mathematics with a Year in Business BSc
• Finance and Mathematics BSc
• Finance and Mathematics with a Year in Business BSc
• Management with Mathematics BSc
• Modern Languages with Mathematics BA
• Mathematics for Applications MSc
• Mathematics of Cryptography and Communications MSc
• settings Undergraduate Postgraduate taught Postgraduate research Search Mathematics All departments View all undergraduate courses for 2018 View all undergraduate courses for 2019 View all postgraduate courses for 2018
• Mobile site view
• Desktop site view
• Media enquiries
• Modern Slavery Act
• IT Services
• Social media
• CampusAnywhere
• Terms and conditions

Comment on this page

Did you find the information you were looking for? Is there a broken link or content that needs updating? Let us know so we can improve the page.

Note: If you need further information or have a question that cannot be satisfied by this page, please call our switchboard on +44 (0)1784 434455.

This window will close when you submit your comment.

Cookies on our website

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use our site. And we'd like to serve you some cookies set by other services to show you relevant content.

• Accessibility
• Staff search
• External website
• Schools & services
• Sussex Direct
• Professional services
• Schools and services
• Engineering and Informatics
• Student handbook
• Informatics
• MSc dissertations and projects

Marking criteria MSc ACS

• Back to previous menu
• MSc project
• Dissertation content
• Ethical guidelines
• Dissertation timetable
• Marking criteria MSc AIAS
• Marking criteria MSc CDM
• Marking criteria MSc MIT

School of Engineering and Informatics (for staff and students)

Dissertation marking criteria

Dissertations should demonstrate a mix of skills at masters level. Depending on the project, different skills will have greater weighting in the marking, but no project will be carried by a single one. The criteria for evaluation include:

• application of or extension of MSc course skills, ideally beyond those taught in that course, or skills beyond those that might reasonably be expected of a computer science undergraduate.
• engagement with the literature, including appropriate selection of papers and analysis of concepts.A dissertation which applies concepts from one field in another area or combines concepts from two fields may attract greater weighting for the literature aspect.
• theoretical analysis and development of concepts.
• quality of programming, proofs and other practical development work.  Organisation, clarity, efficiency, application of advanced methods and novelty are the focus. A large volume of code is not, by itself, sufficient.
• quality of evaluation, including choice of methods, controls and conditions; rigour of their application, and analysis of data.
• novelty is not an absolute requirement of an MSc dissertation. However, the work undertaken should engage with recent developments in computer science. Where there is novelty, for instance modification of algorithms or a new approach to a proof, this shall be acknowledged in the marking.
• good project management will be reflected in the outcomes of the dissertation. However, examiners may wish to note appropriate selection of tools and methods and suitable management of time and risk, particularly where engaging with very new tools or making novel contributions.

General professional standards will be expected:

• in matters of punctuation, vocabulary choice, standard English grammar, and the conventions of academic discourse (including reference to sources).
• in presentation of code (for programming projects): Code for programming projects should be submitted as an appendix to the main report.
• in formal aspects of presentation (word-processing/typing, printing).

Guidelines to students and markers on standards expected at each level

70% - 100%  -  Excellent Shows very good understanding supported by evidence that the student has gone beyond what was taught by extra study, programming, or creative thought. Work at the top end of this range is of exceptional quality. Write-up: well-structured, correct references, critical discussion of existing relevant work, neatly presented, interesting and clearly expressed, thorough disinterested critique of what is good and bad about the approach taken, and proposals about how the project work could be developed in the future. Literature: engagement with current research, including appropriate analysis, comparison, critique and selection and precis of key ideas relating to the student's work.   Program: code that executes efficiently, incorporates sophisticated programming features, is non-redundant, well-structured, well commented and elegant, addresses the problem effectively for a non-trivial application. Theoretical analysis: appropriate application of techniques, including classification, proof, complexity analysis etc., to a non-trivial problem. Evaluation: a substantial evaluation, through appropriate interpretation of analysis, simulation, deployment, functional and non-functional testing, etc., coupled with excellent interpretation and presentation of results.  In more experimental projects results will be repeatable and contain comparison with alternative techniques and/or significant exploration of the parameters of the code/problem.

60% - 69%  -  Good Very competent in all respects, substantially correct and complete knowledge but not going beyond what was taught. Literature: engagement with literature, including critique of ideas, well-related to the rest of the project.  Possibly not engaging beyond further reading from course(s). Program: code that executes, incorporates some complexity, is well-designed and presented and addresses a reasonably non-trivial problem related to the literature. Theoretical analysis: a clear, if not particularly sophisticated, analysis of the problem. Evaluation: a good application of appropriate techniques leading to a clear result.

55% - 59%  -  Satisfactory Competent in most respects.  Minor gaps in knowledge but reasonable understanding of fundamental concepts. Literature: a presentation of ideas from the literature, given some structure and basic analysis and related to the rest of the project. Program: code that executes, and addresses a simple problem. Theoretical analysis: a competent analysis of at least the most significant concepts in the work. Evaluation: evidence of appropriate testing beyond function testing of code.

50% - 54%  -  Borderline Significant gaps in knowledge but some understanding of funamental concepts.  Typically this project will be a marginal development or integration of course or textbook ideas, with some evaluation or analysis.

30% - 49%  -  Fail Inadequate knowledge of the subject.  Work is seriously flawed, displaying major lack of understanding, irrelevance or incoherence.  Code, analysis and evaluation that are not coherent in terms of the problem being addressed or the methods to be employed in doing this.

Poster marking criteria

• Engagement with the literature, showing understanding of prior work to be applied and/or knowledge gap that the project will address. This might require a combination of tool / evaluation method selection and survey of related work.
• Description of the planned system. A passable poster will have a clear statement of goals. The level of sophistication in the design (or other technical progress to date) is of interest, which might involve technical complexity in the work or the techniques being proposed to evaluate the work.
• Quality of the poster design - clear and informative in a poster setting, without being cluttered.
• Ability of the student to answer questions and justify claims / choices made verbally.

Note that novelty is not an absolute requirement of an MSc dissertation.  However, the work undertaken should engage with recent developments in computer science. Where there is novelty, for instance modification of algorithms or a new approach to a proof, this shall be acknowledged in the marking.

Guidelines to students and markers on standards expected at each level:

85-100%  -  Excellent All of: Shows very good understanding supported by evidence that the student has gone beyond what was taught by extra study, programming, or creative thought. Work at the top end of this range is of exceptional quality. A clear statement of goals, set in context of a problem and prior work. Full discussion of existing relevant work, as comparisons, basis or tools. Neatly presented, with clear and polished graphics and clear but brief text. A design which addresses the problem effectively for a non-trivial application; for theoretical analysis: appropriate application of techniques, including classification, proof, complexity analysis etc., to a non-trivial problem. Evaluation plans: appropriate selection of techniques and identification of suitable data to support the evaluation of success of the goals. Possibly includes early results. Verbal discussion will be able to go beyond the poster content, justifying ideas - although allowing for there to be flaws or limitations which are acceptable for MSc level or stage in project. 70% - 84%  -  Very good As for excellent, but competent rather than top class in some respect. 60% - 69%  -  Good Very competent in all respects, substantially correct and complete knowledge but not going beyond what was taught. Literature, design, and/or evaluation plans lacking in sophistication - not really going beyond course material or lacking in complexity.Generally well presented, without requiring the most polished graphics. 55% - 59%  -  Satisfactory Competent in most respects. Minor gaps in knowledge but reasonable understanding of fundamental concepts. Literature, design, and/or evaluation plans are coherent but addressing a simple idea. Possibly lacking in clarity in the presentation or verbal discussion. 50% - 54%  -  Borderline Significant gaps in knowledge but some understanding of funamental concepts.  Typically this project will be a marginal development or integration of course or textbook ideas, with some evaluation or analysis. Presentation may be weak, e.g. poor English or incomplete figures; discussion may reveal weakness in comprehension. 0% - 49%  -  Fail Inadequate knowledge of the subject. Work is seriously flawed, displaying major lack of understanding, irrelevance or incoherence.

School Office: School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Chichester 1 Room 002, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QJ [email protected] T 01273 (67) 8195 School Office opening hours: School Office open Monday – Friday 09:00-15:00, phone lines open Monday-Friday 09:00-17:00 School Office location [PDF 1.74MB]

Copyright © 2024, University of Sussex

School of Social and Political Science

Marking descriptors.

• Coursework marking scheme
• Dissertation marking scheme

A1 (90-100%)

An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair in tackling issues, yielding a product that is deemed to be of potentially publishable quality, in terms of scholarship and originality.

A2 (80-89%)

An authoritative answer that provides a fully effective response to the question. It should show a command of the literature and an ability to integrate that literature and go beyond it. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to the conclusion. Sources should be used accurately and concisely to inform the answer but not dominate it. There should be a sense of a critical and committed argument, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to question them. Presentation and the use of English should be commensurate with the quality of the content.

A3 (70-79%)

A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the literature and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions.

B B- (60-63%) B (64-66%) B+ (67-69%)

A very good answer that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question and the sources should be addressed directly and fully. The work of other authors should be presented critically. Effective use should be made of the whole range of the literature. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation. The answer should proceed coherently to a convincing conclusion. The quality of the writing and presentation (especially referencing) should be without major blemish. Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+; a more limited answer will be graded B-.

C C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%)

A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and firmly based in the reading. It may draw upon a restricted range of sources but should not just re-state one particular source. Other authors should be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. The materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-.

D D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%)

A passable answer which understands the question, displays some academic learning and refers to relevant literature. The answer should be intelligible and in general factually accurate, but may well have deficiencies such as restricted use of sources or academic argument, over-reliance on lecture notes, poor expression, and irrelevancies to the question asked. The general impression may be of a rather poor effort, with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the issue. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

An answer with evident weaknesses of understanding but conveying the sense that with a fuller argument or factual basis it might have achieved a pass. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps.

An answer showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and pedestrian use of inadequate sources.

An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with reading or academic concepts.

An answer without any academic merit which usually conveys little sense that the course has been followed or of the basic skills of essay-writing.

A dissertation that fulfils all of the criteria for an ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair and originality in tackling both methodological and substantive issues. These should be seen as yielding a product that is of potentially publishable quality in terms of scholarship, originality and contribution to the field.

An authoritative dissertation that displays a sophisticated grasp of issues raised in the literature and develops an appropriate design and methodology to address a clearly-articulated set of questions stemming from that literature. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to its own independent conclusions. It should also show an ability to be reflexive, pointing to lessons learned from the research and making suggestions where appropriate as to how future studies in the area might benefit from experience gained in the course of the investigation. Referencing, presentation and use of English should be of commensurately high quality.

A dissertation of high intellectual quality, which has clearly-stated aims, displays a good grasp of methodological issues and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. While presenting the data obtained from the research accurately, the discussion should move beyond a mainly descriptive account of the results, to develop its own comments, points and interpretations.

A very good dissertation that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The research question should be clearly stated and an appropriate methodology used to test or answer it, with effective use made of the literature. There should be no significant errors of either fact or interpretation. The presentation and use of the research data should be accurate and the discussion should show a willingness to speculate on their implications for theoretical, empirical or practical developments in the area. Referencing and the quality of the writing should be without major blemish. The answer should cover the question fully and present only relevant material. Within this range a particularly strong dissertation will be graded B+; a more limited one will be graded B-.

A satisfactory dissertation, though showing elements of the routine and predictable. While generally accurate and firmly based in the reading, it will tend to draw on a more restricted set of sources. It will probably also be based on less clearly-stated aims and/or a less coherent methodology. Indeed, it is the grasp and handling of methodological issues that will most likely differentiate between the B and C grades. The data will be presented accurately, if rather descriptively, although there should be no serious weaknesses in their portrayal or interpretation. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger dissertation will be graded C+; a weaker one C-.

A passable dissertation, which displays some familiarity with relevant literature and the issues under investigation. The aims may be poorly articulated and this incoherence will undermine the quality of the research. The work should be intelligible and factually accurate, but will contain deficiencies such as restricted use of sources, poor expression and failure to analyse or discuss the implications of the data in anything more than a thin and descriptive way. The general impression will probably be of a rather poor effort with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for an obviously hastily-executed piece of research which attempted to address a relevant set of questions. Within this range a stronger piece of work will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

A dissertation showing clear lack of understanding of the nature of research, but conveying the sense that with clearer aims and better developed instruments it might have achieved a pass. It might also clearly have been written in a hurry, with some merit, but serious gaps, in what is presented.

Work showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and limited use of inadequate sources. It could also be the mark for a very short answer with some relevant material.

Work falling short of a passable level by some combination of poor methodology, unclear aims, incoherence, factual inaccuracy and lack of familiarity with basic concepts or literature.

A dissertation containing no academic merit or evidence that the author understands the nature of the research enterprise, or made a serious effort to address the topic.

MSc Project Marking Guidelines

The project is assessed on the basis of a written final dissertation. Dissertations will typically conform to the following format:

• Title page with abstract.
• Introduction : an introduction to the document, clearly stating the hypothesis or objective of the project, motivation for the work and the results achieved. The structure of the remainder of the document should also be outlined.
• Background : background to the project, previous work, exposition of relevant literature, setting of the work in the proper context. This should contain sufficient information to allow the reader to appreciate the contribution you have made.
• Description of the work undertaken : this may be divided into chapters describing the conceptual design work and the actual implementation separately. Any problems or difficulties and the suggested solutions should be mentioned. Alternative solutions and their evaluation should also be included.
• Analysis or Evaluation : results and their critical analysis should be reported, whether the results conform to expectations or otherwise and how they compare with other related work. Where appropriate evaluation of the work against the original objectives should be presented.
• Conclusion : concluding remarks and observations, unsolved problems, suggestions for further work.
• Bibliography.

This format is given for guidance only. The structure of an MSc dissertation should be chosen to suit the project.

• The problem is clearly stated and the student demonstrates an understanding of the problem.
• The work is `complete', with a coherent conclusion and evidence in support of it.
• The quality of the work demonstrates a thoroughness and clarity in approach.
• The quality of presentation is of an adequate standard, with the arguments well-structured and the English fluent.
• The student demonstrates extensive knowledge of the literature
• There is an excellent critical evaluation of previous work
• There is a critical evaluation of the student's own work
• There is sound justification of design decisions
• There is a novel solution of conceptual problems
• The amount of work undertaken is more than one would expect, in the time available.
• There is evidence of outstanding merit e.g. originality
• The dissertation includes material worthy of publication in peer-reviewed outlets.

Note that according to the University's marking regulations (see the document Taught Assessment Regulations (PDF) , and in particular page 32), a dissertation may be judged satisfactory, as presented and without alteration, despite containing small deficiencies and editorial imperfections.

Markers may not recommend that marginal fails be resubmitted with minor ammendments. Resubmissions are not permitted unless this has been approved by CSPC on the basis of a case submitted by the College of Science and Engineering (or in a case falling under Taught Assessment Regulation 58; see below). If the Board of Examiners wishes a student to resubmit, a case on the basis of special circumstances needs to be submitted to CSPC as a College-requested concession.

Note that the 'completion' criterion, B, covers achievement of the original objectives, achievement of modified objectives or providing convincing evidence that the objectives are unachievable. The 'outstanding merit' criterion, K, includes originality and the excellence of engineering.

Many dissertations will not fit neatly into any category, e.g. strong on additional criteria, but weak on a basic one. In this case, examiners are asked to trade one criterion off against another as best they can, bearing in mind that failure on a basic criterion is a serious fault.

The degree may be awarded with merit or with distinction . For distinction , a candidate must have been awarded at least 70% for the dissertation and other work from the taught element of the course must have also be assessed and awarded a mark which is close to, or above the 70% standard. For merit , at least 60% is required on both criteria.

Markers should be particularly careful about assigning grades at these two borderlines. In particular, if the marks assigned by the first and second marker are on different sides of a borderline, then a special justification is required for the agreed mark, explaining why the agreed mark is either below or above the borderline. This justification should be entered in the agreed mark form as free text.

Marks of 45-49. According to Taught Assessment Regulations (number 58), with a mark in this range the student may re-submit the thesis within 3 months, and both markers will need to re-mark the new submission. The same can happen in case of special circumstances, if the SC committee decides on a re-submission.

When examiners are aware of any mitigating factors which should be taken into account, these should not be compensated for in the assessment but should be mentioned in the appropriate section of the report with an indication of the degree of compensation felt to be appropriate. Similarly if an examiners feels that the dissertation does not do justice to the work carried out by the candidate, this should be made clear in the report together with an explanation. In all cases reasons for the overall grading must be given.

In the General Comments section, examiners should include a little contextual information as to what the thesis is about, in no more than one sentence or two. Supervisors should also note the extent to which the candidate was self-directed or required close supervision. Original contributions by the candidate or novelty in the project should also be highlighted. If the project involved extending existing code, the examiner should try to estimate how much work was put into researching the pre-existing background.

It is very important that the comments that are written on the mark sheet are sufficiently informative to justify the mark awarded the dissertation.

In all cases, it is the Board of Examiners that make the final decision, based on the mark sheets and agreed marks. Except under exceptional circumstances, individual mark sheets should be completed without consultation amongst examiners. If it is necessary to consult, this should be indicated appropriately on the submitted form.

Examiners are invited to nominate a dissertation for a prize if they think this is appropriate. Making such a nomination on the project marking form will allow External Examiners to adjudicate between competing projects.

Academic Manual

• 7. Classification

Section 7: Classification

Published for 2023-24

7.1 Overarching Principles

7.2 calculating classifications, 7.2.1 averages and rounding, 7.2.2 classification year mean (ug programmes only), 7.2.3 weighting of reassessment and deferral marks , 7.2.4 credit awarded via the recognition of prior learning (rpl) , 7.2.5 pass / fail degrees , 7.2.6 study abroad and placements  , 7.2.7 academic partnerships, 7.3 pre-honours classification scheme , 7.4    honours degree classification scheme, 7.4.1 general principles , 7.4.2 honours classification scheme a , 7.4.3 honours classification scheme b , 7.4.4 honours classification scheme c , 7.4.5 determination of honours classifications , 7.5 graduate classification scheme , 7.6 taught postgraduate classification scheme , 7.7 research masters (mres) classification scheme , 7.8 non-modular programmes  , 7.8.1 ba (hons) english , 7.8.2 ba (hons) fine art , 7.8.3 bfa (hons) fine art , 7.8.4 mbbs (bachelor of medicine, bachelor of surgery), 7.8.5 ma fine art , 7.8.6 mfa fine art in the slade school of fine art, advice for students.

Further information and advice for students about assessment is available on the  Examinations & Awards webpages .

Recent Changes

A guide to changes to the regulations are available from the  Recent Changes  page.

Mathematics Institute

Msc dissertations, mathematics dissertations.

The MSc dissertation counts for 90 CATS - that is, half of the total MSc load.

A dissertation is usually expository, collecting together results from several research papers into a coherent whole. Sometimes dissertations contain original research, and this is encouraged where appropriate. The general framework of a dissertation must be approved by the supervisor. This page may help to find staff members with interesting topics.

The appropriate length for a dissertation will vary with the topic, the formatting, and whether or not it includes figures, etc. As a guide, most MSc dissertations are between 30 and 50 A4 pages, double spaced, with normal font size and margins. Longer dissertations are not necessarily better, and the marks obtained depend much more on the quality of the content (especially the mathematics) than on the number of words. It is essential that the dissertation is well presented.

The dissertation should normally be produced in TEX or LaTEX. The package here is intended for PhD theses, but it can also be used for MSc dissertations. Suitable past dissertations are available for inspection. If you are in any doubt, please consult your supervisor or the Director of the MSc.

Interdisciplinary Mathematics Dissertations

For MSc Interdisciplinary Mathematics candidates the above holds, although these dissertations may be longer if they contain many diagrams, data or programs for example. The level of sophistication of the mathematics used in the dissertation may be lower than that expected in a straight Mathematics MSc provided that the dissertation demonstrates a compensating degree of understanding of the role or appropriate use of the mathematics described. The mathematics in the dissertation should be correct, appropriate for the interdisciplinary topic under discussion, and should say something of scientific value. This page may help to find staff members in the math dept with interesting topics.

Dissertation Marks

The dissertation is read by two internal examiners (including a supervisor) who report to the Examination Board. For MSc Interdisciplinary Mathematics dissertations, reports are generally requested from an internal examiner in each of the relevant departments to ensure sufficient interdisciplinary quality.

Examiners are asked to discuss the dissertation under the headings: Accuracy and depth of understanding (40%); Level of difficulty and degree of originality (40%); Exposition (10%); Context/Literature Bibliography (10%). The marks are passed to the Examination Board. The external examiner reviews the dissertations and marks prior to the Examination Board meeting.

The dissertation pass mark is 50% and students must pass the dissertation in order to pass the MSc.

Submitting your Dissertation or Postgraduate Diploma Project

The submission deadline is 2nd September 2024. Submissions will be made via Moodle. Further details will be provided closer to the deadline.

The name of the candidate's supervisor must be stated on the title page of the dissertation. The introduction to the dissertation should state clearly all sources used, and should pinpoint clearly any original passages claimed. The candidate should briefly describe how the sources were used and their relation to the dissertation. Acknowledgements should also appear, where appropriate, in the body of the dissertation. References with precise bibliographic details should be included. A dissertation will not be accepted if any reader (including one unfamiliar with the contents of the references cited) could gain a mistaken impression that expository material is the candidate's own original work.

Good English style, with correct grammar and spelling, is expected. The books Writing Mathematics Well by L. Gillman, and How to Write Mathematics by N.E. Steenrod et al. (AMS 1973) are recommended. (Both can be found in the Library catalogue .) In addition, supervisors can often help by suggesting which published mathematical papers are good models of exposition, and which are not.

Postgraduate Diploma Project

The expected standard in a Postgraduate Diploma is less than that for an MSc degree. If a candidate is recommended to transfer to the Postgraduate Diploma as a result of their examination results, the candidate will need to write a (Diploma) project rather than a dissertation. Students on the 2 year MSc course will submit a project at the end of their first year

The Diploma project counts for 24 CATS (rather than 90 CATS for an MSc dissertation). It is usually an expository work describing a piece of mathematics (which may be related to material covered in lectures). Sometimes a project may involve numerical work or a guided exploration of some particular problem. The project should normally be about 10-20 pages long and should show that the candidate is capable of writing about mathematics in a coherent fashion. The general framework of the project must be approved by the supervisor. The project is marked against these criteria and not against that for the MSc.