edinburgh university dissertation marking

• Schools & departments

Dissertations and research projects

General advice and resources to support you throughout your research-based dissertation or project.

This is a general resource to help you with the basics of organising and writing a research-based dissertation or project.  The 'Go further' section at the end includes advice on work-based dissertations and signposts other resources.

You should consult your course or programme information, including online sources, and project supervisor or programme director for subject-specific guidance.

Dissertations and research projects are an opportunity to focus on particular question, and plan and undertake your own research to explore it further.  Many students really enjoy being an independent researcher and becoming the expert on their work.  The format varies depending on the disciplinary context, subject area, your research questions and the project.  You may be reviewing the literature, analysing a novel, developing and testing a new method or doing a work-based project.  However there are some common factors:

• They are an independent piece of work.  You will be working under supervision to some extent and may be collaborating with others, but ultimately you are submitting a piece of independent thought and writing.
• They tend to have a large word count.  This is to allow you to do sufficient in-depth analysis and discussion of the topic.
• They require a large investment of time, thought and energy throughout the process.  As a significant body of academic work, you need to maintain effort whilst reading, researching, thinking, writing and redrafting it.

Choosing your dissertation or project

Whether you are choosing your dissertation from a selection of topics or you are proposing your own, there are a range of factors to consider.  For example:

• What is the starting point for your work, i.e. previous or related research?
• How feasible is your project / proposal?
• Do you have enough time and resources to complete it?
• Will it be of an appropriate academic level?

A key question to ask is “How interested am I in this topic?”  You will be working on your dissertation or project for some time, so having a genuine interest in the topic will help to keep you motivated.  If you have any questions specific to your topic or project, you should ask your supervisor, programme director or another member of staff who teaches you.

Planning your dissertation or research project

A research-based dissertation or project is a large piece of work requiring a high level of critical analysis.  To achieve this you will have to allow time, not just for the researching phase, but also for the writing and editing stages.  You will need to give yourself plenty of time to:

• Read around your topic and undertake background research;
• Digest and think about what you are learning and writing;
• Complete experiments, fieldwork, interviews or project placements;
• Analyse data, findings or results, and interpret them;
• Think about and decide on your conclusions.

Taking a project management approach to your dissertation or research project might be a more effective way to successfully complete it.  The Time management page has tips and tools for organising your time.

Time management webpage and tools

The dissertation and project planner can be used to think about the different stages and help give you an overall view of the process.  There are some general points and questions to act as prompts, spaces you can add your own notes in and some useful tips and resources.

Dissertation and project planner (pdf)                     Dissertation and project planner (rtf)

Writing your dissertation

You should not underestimate the time that should be allocated to writing your dissertation.  Writing will involve planning, background research, drafting, redrafting, and proof-reading and editing.

First draft : Your first draft is about getting words on the page.  For example, it may sketch out your first thoughts, arguments and potential structure.  You can review these and use them to check: are you focussed on the right topics and questions?  Is your structure and line of thought sensible?  This is also a good time to set up your format requirements (e.g. page layouts, references).

Redrafts : Redrafting is where you expand and refine your ideas and argument.  You may also find that as you are writing the direction of your argument changes; for example this could be due to your literature research producing new avenues of thought or your experiments turning up unexpected results.  This is a good time to review the focus of your initial question, and whether your arguments or conclusions are still sensible.

Final draft(s) : Your final draft(s) is where you cast a critical eye over your work and assess how effective it is in communicating your argument and conclusions - does it answer the question?  You should also check that your presentation, spelling and grammar are appropriate and polished, all your references are included, and your are following the appropriate format guidance.

It is a good idea to take a break between writing and reviewing your work.  Try to leave at least a day between writing before you pick it up again, the longer the better.  This allows you to look at your work with an analytical eye, looking for ways to improve.  Imagine you are reading your work as someone who is not so familiar with the topic: would a reader be able to follow and understand your argument?  Do your ideas link?  Have you signposted on from one section to the next?  Remember also to look back at your question/title, does your dissertation address it?  Does it follow a logical structure?

To check the flow of your argument or line of reasoning you can test pieces of your text using set criteria.  To help revise and restructure your text you can make a reverse outline.  Both of these techniques are available on our Editing and proofreading page.

Editing and proofreading

Producing a professional document

Information Services provide information and guidance about how to produce a thesis or dissertation using Microsoft Word.

Producing a thesis or dissertation using Microsoft Word (EASE log in required)

Thesis Hub: Producing your thesis or dissertation in Word

Choosing a reference manager

A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list.

Referencing and reference management

Data Mindfulness

As part of your research you will produce and use research data in a variety of forms from quantitative and/or qualitative research.  This may be data you generate yourself or obtained from other researchers, data repositories or public records.  You need to make choices about what you use, handle your data correctly and document all of this process.

The University’s Research Data Service helps staff and students be effective with their research data before, during and after their project.   They have created an introductory handbook on Data Mindfulness for taught students writing a dissertation.  This handbook is accompanied by a set of short videos.  Together these cover topics including what data is, how to store it, file organisation and dealing with your data after your hand-in.  There is advice in the handbook on working with sensitive data and issues such as privacy, confidentiality and disclosure.

Data Mindfulness handbook

Data Mindfulness videos

Work-based dissertations

Many courses and programmes, particularly at Postgraduate level, offer the opportunity to carry out a work-based dissertation.  These opportunities vary between Schools and Programmes but will typically involve students tackling a research question identified by an organisation such as a business, a public sector organisation or a charity.  A work based dissertation project can be invaluable for your employability and for career development.

If you are interested in carrying out a work-based dissertation you may need to start planning earlier than you would for a more traditional academic dissertation.  If your Programme offers this opportunity, you will be given this information at the start of Semester 1.  If you would like to source and set up a dissertation project with an external organisation yourself, you will need to speak with your Programme Director or Course Organiser first.

You can draw on resources developed by the Making the Most of Masters project.

Making the Most of Masters

Work-based projects – advice for students

There are a variety of study guides available on dissertation and project writing.  Books aimed at postgraduate students can also be useful for undergraduates.  Our IAD Resource List has a selection available in University libraries.

Study Skills Guides

This article was published on 2024-02-26

Online Marking

Online Marking - for marking & reviewing multiple-marker projects or dissertations. Get in touch with your School contact for enquiries and access.

Choose your School

• Schools & departments

• Important dates

Project dissertations

• Choosing your project
• Your supervisor's roles
• Project Skills
• School of Mathematics Teaching
• Postgraduate Taught
• MSc Programmes
• Operational Research
• Assessment structure

Information about planning and writing a dissertation including the assessment criteria, dissertation format and examples from previous years.

Dissertation

During the period from June to August, candidates for the MSc work on a project on an approved topic and write a dissertation based on this work.

Before the final assessment of the taught component of the MSc programme, all students are considered as MSc candidates. Following the Board of Examiners meeting in June, students who complete the taught component at MSc level proceed to the dissertation stage of the MSc programme. After this time the award of the MSc degree depends only on the achievement of a dissertation mark of at least 50%.

You can either define your own project, in agreement with a member of staff who is willing to act as an Academic Supervisor, or wait until you are being allocated to a project defined by the School. Dissertation topics will be agreed by the end of April. Detailed work will be carried out during the months of June, July, and August, with enough time being allocated to writing up the dissertation. In many cases, the research for the dissertation will involve working with an outside organisation for part of the summer months.

The dissertation will be submitted electronically.

Time management

University regulations require full-time postgraduate students to be in Edinburgh for the duration of the Programme unless specifically granted a leave of absence. This will not be given to enable you to submit a dissertation early in order to return home before the end of the programme. Completing a dissertation in less than the time available is also extremely unwise as early completion may lower the standard of work and presentation.

Backups of dissertations

You are strongly advised to keep a backup draft of your dissertation and not to use a USB flash drive for this purpose since they are easily lost or damaged. No compensation or extension will be given for work or data lost by students. 

Confidential projects

If commercial confidentiality requires that a dissertation be treated as confidential, this can be arranged by informing the office at the time of submission. Confidential dissertations will be read by the Academic Supervisor and examiners, and will not be available for reference. You can collect a copy of the dissertation after the final Board of Examiners meeting in September.  Dissertations are read by two internal examiners before being reviewed by the External Examiner.  

Assessment criteria

All dissertations are expected to conform to the following standards:

• The dissertation must add to the understanding of the dissertation subject.
• The dissertation must show awareness of the relevant literature.
• The dissertation must contain relevant analysis: an informed description of a problem is not sufficient.
• The dissertation must be presented using a satisfactory standard of English.

You should inform your Academic Supervisor and the Programme Director of any factors that will adversely affect your ability to work on your dissertation topic. Special circumstances will be taken into account by the Board of Examiners, but this information must be available before the meeting of the Board. Exceptionally, it is possible for extensions to be granted if justified by illness or other personal problems. This can be done if relevant information is given to the Academic Supervisor or the Programme Director.

Dissertation format

Dissertations are normally expected to be between 10,000 and 14,000 words in length. Reports for the SwDS programme have a limit of 5,000 words for each project.

All should consist of the following:

• Own work declaration
• Abstract (around half a page)

The main text should consist of the following:

• Introduction section
• Final section on conclusions and/or recommendations
• List of all bibliographic references
• Appendices (optional)

Reports should be typeset with single spacing and font size 11 pt . The following minimum margins must be observed: 

The pages in the main text, bibliography, and appendices must be numbered consecutively.

We provide a LaTeX template for dissertations.

We have also additional and more detailed guidelines available as well as the examiner's form .

Good dissertations from previous years 

• Analysing spatiotemporal sensor data on respiration, activity, and air pollution , Meeke Roet (distinction)
• The Firefighter Game , Oleguer Simon Camps (distinction)
• Optimisation of the Outbound Baggage Process at Edinburgh Airport , James Marek (distinction, industry)
• Heuristics for the Multi-Period Sales Districting Problem , Josephine Li (merit)
• Learning the Heterogeneity in Large-Scale Service Systems , Morgan Gallagher (merit)
• A hydrogen refuelling network design - Metaheuristic solution approach , Anqi He (merit)

Schools & departments

Toggle navigation menu Menu

• Student Story (videos)
• Literature Searching This link opens in a new window
• Managing your references
• Subject Guides This link opens in a new window
• Institute For Academic Development - dissertation resources This link opens in a new window
• Cultural Heritage Collections This link opens in a new window
• Digital Primary Sources This link opens in a new window
• The University of Edinburgh
• Subject guides

Dissertations

This guide highlights the help and resources available from the Library to support your dissertation or research project. It also directs you to other support teams that may be useful.

Always check that you are following the requirements provided by your School. 

You can explore the different topics using the left-hand navigation.

Get tips from previous students in Student Story.

Student Story

As you embark on your own dissertation, there is guidance from the Institute for Academic Development (IAD).

Institute for Academic Development

Find out more about literature searching and managing your references. 

Literature Search Managing your references

Explore key resources for your research in Subject Guides.

Subject Guides

Go beyond DiscoverEd and explore collections.

Cultural Heritage Collections Digital Primary Sources

• Dissertation and Thesis Festival

The Library's Dissertation Festival brings together the support that the Library, Digital Skills and IAD provide for students undertaking their dissertations. Dissertation and Thesis Festival Dates for 2023 - 2024 

• Semester 1: Monday 30th October - 10th November 2023 
• Semester 2: Monday 11th - Friday 15th March 2024.

For the programme of events and previous event recordings visit the Dissertation and Thesis Festival webpage.  

For more information please get in touch 

Follow the Library

This main page relates to the course for 2022/23. For information regarding the 2023/24 MSc Dissertation, please see Open Course - DISS .

MSc Project Guide, 2022/23

Introduction.

The project is an essential component of the Masters courses. It is a substantial piece of full-time independent work starting in June. A dissertation describing the work must be submitted by a deadline in mid-August.

Students are expected to stay in Edinburgh for the duration of their degree programme. This includes during the writing of the MSc dissertation until the submission deadline. If you are on a Tier 4 visa and leave the country for an extended period of time, the School is obligated to contact Student Immigration Service who will notify UK Visa and Immigration (UKVI).) See MSc handbook .

The project involves both the application of skills learned in the past and the acquisition of new skills. It allows students to demonstrate their ability to organise and carry out a major piece of work according to sound scientific and engineering principles. The types of activity involved in each project will vary but all will typically share the following features:

• Research the literature and gather background information
• Analyse requirements, compare alternatives and specify a solution
• Design and implement the solution
• Experiment and evaluate the solution
• Develop written and oral presentation skills

Supervision

Supervisors enable students to complete the taught module Informatics Project Proposal (IPP) during Semester 2, and to carry out MSc projects over the summer.

Over the summer, the supervisor gives appropriate technical advice and also assists the student in planning the project and working towards various targets during the period of work. Students should expect approximately weekly meetings with their supervisor at the start of the project but the frequency of these meetings will normally drop as the project progresses and as students become more self-sufficient. Backup supervisors may be allocated to cover periods of absence of the supervisor, if necessary.

Choosing a Project

There are several steps

• Staff and (optionally) students propose MSc projects.
• Students then express interest in projects and potential supervisors mark interested students as suitable/unsuitable for the projects in question. At the end, every student needs to be marked suitable for 5 projects .
• Students rank their project choices in order of preference.
• Students are assigned a project and MSc supervisor.

Details on how to propose a project and select your project preferences are given below.

Student-proposed projects

Students can submit their own project proposal via the DPMT system . However, they need to find an interested supervisor, typically well in advance of the project selection deadline .

Self-proposed project supervisors should be a member of Academic staff or Research staff . The School’s Institutes pages are useful for finding staff in particular research areas, and to browse the broad research areas represented in the School.

This procedure of self-proposal is intended for students who know at the beginning of semester 2 (or earlier) what specific project they wish to do. The student must discuss their idea with a member of academic staff and get them agree to act as supervisor for the project. The MSc project coordinator will take self-proposed projects into account when making the allocation between students and MSc supervisors, and allocate a self-proposed project whenever feasible.

Students are not expected to propose a project; the default is that students will be assigned a staff-proposed project which they will flesh out into a fuller MSc project as an outcome of the taught module Informatics Project Proposal (henceforth IPP).

If you do wish to propose a project however, you must discuss your ideas with a member of staff and get them to commit to supervising your project before submitting a proposal. This will cover aspects such as the suitability of its topic, the methods to be used, any facilities or systems required, the form the results would take, any difficulties that might arise (i.e., risks), the likelihood that it can be completed and written up by the August deadline, etc. It is up to you to find a supervisor who is willing to supervise your project. Having done this, submit the proposal as instructed in the DPMT system with all the relevant details filled in. The deadline for completing the whole process (discussion with staff and filling in the proposal webform) is in the timetable . This staff member will then register as potential supervisor for your project in the DPMT system. (Green button “Register…” at the bottom of the page.)

If you want to do your self-proposed project with an external industrial partner as supervisor, you’ll still need an internal co-supervisor (i.e., an Informatics staff member) in addition to your external supervisor. (If your supervisor is a staff member at a different School at the University of Edinburgh, then no co-supervisor is required.)

See the guide for external supervisors

As always, your project proposal must be filed before the deadline Both the internal and external supervisor need to register for it.

Even if you self-propose a project, you still need to register interest in other projects, until you are marked suitable for 5 projects (including your self-proposed one). You might not get your self-proposed project if the named supervisor ends up with too many projects to supervise. Thus you need fall-backs.

There is no guarantee that all proposed projects will be allocated. However, any pairings between staff and students that happen as a result of student self-proposed project development during these first 2 weeks of the semester will be taken into account when assigning staff their MSc students.

Projects with Industrial Collaborators

Students who are sponsored by, or have close contact with an industrial company may wish to undertake a project which relates to that company’s activities. This is encouraged. Such collaborations can take two different forms:

• If the project is specific to a particular student, then the student should file a self-proposed project in DPMT and get both an internal supervisor (i.e., Informatics staff member) and an external supervisor (i.e., the industrial partner). These supervisors will need to register as supervisors for this particular project in DPMT. See the guide for external co-supervisors here .
• External people (i.e., not staff at UoE) can also propose topics for MSc thesis. (provided that they have a staff member as co-supervisor). However, in this case the topic is open to all students , and not reserved for one particular student. Students can then bid for these topics during the normal project selection phase.
• UoE staff from other departments (i.e., not Informatics) can also propose/supervise MSc projects. Unlike externals from industry, they do not necessarily need an internal Informatics co-supervisor. See the guide here .

Students doing a project with an industrial partner are still expected to spend a significant portion of their time at the University.

Selecting projects

Students can view the proposed projects from the DPMT system . The list of projects can be sorted by project title, number or supervisor name by clicking on the relevant columns. There is also a search facility (via project tags), so that you can find projects in specific areas.

Students must eventually be marked suitable (by the potential supervisor) for at least 5 MSc projects that they would like to do (this includes supervisors registering interest in any self-proposed projects, where relevant). To this end, students must register interest in projects via the DPMT system and must contact the project proposer. Before doing this, read project descriptions carefully: these often contain information about how to contact the proposer and what information to provide. This is so that the project proposer can provide feedback to the MSc project coordinator about the student's suitability for doing the project. The supervisor will then mark the student as either suitable or unsuitable for the project. Students who are marked unsuitable for some of their chosen projects must register interest in more projects until they are marked suitable for at least 5 projects.

See the timetable for when project selection phase ends. Students who lack five suitable projects by this date risk being assigned to one of the remaining un-allocated projects/supervisors. To be safe, please try to identify and register interest in an initial set of projects a week before this deadline.

Project selection step-by-step

Please follow all of the steps below, even if you proposed a self-proposed project and found a supervisor for it. We try to accommodate all self-proposed projects, but sometimes load-balancing constraints make it impossible. Thus you need fallback options.

Log into the DPMT system and take a detailed look through the list of proposed projects. You must be on campus or the School’s VPN to access DPMT.

Read the details of all projects that seem interesting, paying attention to “Essential Skills” and “Completion Criteria”. We try hard to make sure you get a project of your choice, but this is not always possible. Some projects are extremely popular, but many can only be allocated to one student. We also cannot guarantee that you will be assigned a project in your specialism area.

In the DPMT system you can register interest in projects. Start by registering interest in 5 projects. Try to do this before 3 February , as supervisors will be encouraged to review students for suitability at that point. Do not worry about your preference ranking at this stage. You may need to register interest in a few more projects later (see below).

If you register interest in a project, then you must contact the supervisor (and, ideally, the co-supervisor as well if there is one) and ask to discuss the project. Please see if there is guidance about how to do this in the project description. Just clicking a button in DPMT alone achieves nothing. This will give you a chance to learn more about the project and about the supervisor(s). It will also give the supervisor(s) a chance to assess if you have the right skills to do the project. Some supervisors may not be able to meet with you in person, in which case you will need to discuss the project via video chat or email. Some supervisors also hold pre-tests or group meetings to assess candidates.

The supervisor will then mark you as either “very suitable”, “suitable” or “unsuitable” for the project in the DPMT system. Normally, the only reason for being “unsuitable” is the student does not have the “Essential Skills” to undertake the project.

If you get marked “unsuitable” for some of your first 5 projects of interest, you need to register interest in a few more until you are “suitable” for 5. Please start doing this at least 4-5 days before the final selection deadline. Do not register interest in large numbers of projects, because you’d be wasting everybody’s time.

You can rank your projects in order of preference. We try to take these into account as far as possible, but remember that you might be assigned to any of your “suitable” projects, including your last choice. So choose carefully.

Getting the project you want

To maximise your chances of getting a project you want:

• Look at the project list to see how many other students registered interest in a given project. If that number is high, and the project does not have capacity for several students, then you are unlikely to get it. Choose a different project instead.
• Do not select all your projects from the same supervisor.
• Do not select all your projects in a narrow subject area.
• Consider interesting projects outside your specialism area.

If you do not register interest/attain “suitability” for 5 projects, you will be de-prioritized in the allocation. This means a significantly higher chance that you don’t get assigned to any project, and will have to choose from whatever projects are left over at the end.

See the timetable for the the deadline for the project selection phase. The final project allocation will be made shortly after that (see timetable).

If you have questions, the IPP/MSc project Piazza instance is a good venue for them.

When choosing projects, some issues you should consider are:

• Do you genuinely possess the essential skills listed in the proposal?
• Will you find the project interesting?
• Does it suit your degree?
• Are you up to the intellectual requirements of the project?

Project selection FAQ

Q: Does it help to register interest in a project early? A: There is no first-come first-serve for projects. It does not matter at all who registers interest in a project first; as long as you are marked suitable you will be a potential candidate for that project.

Q: Will I increase my odds of getting my top pick (or top 2 or 3) if I only register interest for that 1 (or 2 or 3) project(s)? A: No. It will decrease the odds. Our matchmaking system allocates students with five suitable projects first, so your preferences count for much less if you don’t have five.

Q: What if I do not meet the essential requirements but I am a quick learner and a hard worker? A: Many of our projects assume that you are both of those things in addition to meeting the essential requirements. Trying to bluff your way into a project is unlikely to be to your advantage.

Q: If I select an “Easy” project, does that mean I can’t get a high mark (e.g., 75+) on it? A: Generally, all projects can be expanded or executed in an unusually impressive way. If you worry a project that interests you might be an exception, ask the proposer.

Allocation of Projects and Supervisors to Students

The MSc project coordinator will allocate each student a project and MSc supervisor on the basis of the preferences expressed by students and the supervision load of individual supervisors. There will inevitably be difficulties when more than one student wishes to do the same project. Some supervisors’ proposals are much more popular than others. Students should not necessarily expect to get their first preference of project, or even (in rare cases) any of the preferences that they stated. This process of assigning students to supervisors and projects will be completed by a date given in the timetable .

These initial assignments of students to projects happens this early in the semester, so that the supervisors, together with the IPP tutors, can deliver to their MSc students the compulsory taught module IPP . However, there is flexibility in changing supervisors in at least two ways. First, a member of staff can, if they choose, delegate supervising duties to a member of research staff (with the researcher’s agreement). However, the staff member remains responsible for ensuring that the supervision meets acceptable standards. Secondly, a student can also choose to change supervisors, provided they get agreement from their existing supervisor and the proposed new supervisor. If there are problems between a student and supervisor that they can’t sort out themselves, then the student can consult with their Personal Tutor.

This flexibility for changing supervisor remains, until the deadline for changes to projects and supervisors given in the timetable . It is not possible to change supervisors after this date.

Plagiarism and other Academic Misconduct

Remember the good scholarly practice requirements of the University regarding work for credit. You can find guidance at the School page . This also has links to the relevant University pages.

See also the following general guide on how to avoid plagiarism .

Progress reports

Progress reports on your MSc projects are due in July; see the timetable for specifics.

The progress reports will NOT be graded. They are meant to be

• informational, for your supervisor and second-marker to verify that you are progressing and that you understand what you are doing;
• additional helpful practice with respect to the final report on your MSc projects, due in August.

The report should be 2-3 pages. It should specify:

• The goal of your project
• The methods you are using
• What you have accomplished so far
• What remains to be done to complete the project.

Submitting progress reports : Students submit their progress report on the LEARN page of DISS, menu item Assessment and then Progress Report on the page.

The Dissertation

The project is only assessed on the basis of a final written dissertation. Additional material, such as the code you submit, may be taken into account in case of doubt, but you should make sure that all the work you have done is carefully described in the dissertation document. All 60-credit MSc dissertations must conform to the following format: (The following limits on the length do not apply to EPCC, DSTI Dissertation (Distance Learning), Masters Dissertation (Design Informatics), and CDT thesis.)

The strict upper bound on the length is 40 pages for normal 60-credit MSc dissertations, excluding front matter (title, abstract, declaration) and bibliography. Theses should not be shorter than 20 pages. Where appropriate, the dissertation may additionally contain appendices in which relevant program listings, experimental data, circuit diagrams, formal proofs, etc. may be included. However, students should keep in mind that they are marked on the quality of the dissertation, not its length. The referees are not required to read any appendices.

The dissertation must be word-processed using LaTeX and must use the School of Informatics infthesis.cls style file according to the skeleton template provided. Any style changes to this LaTeX template (e.g., font size, page size, margins, or anything else) are strictly prohibited .

Additional points about building the thesis using LaTeX:

• The required infthesis.cls style file is installed on all DICE machines. If you run LaTeX on your personal computer you will need to install the following two files found on DICE: /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/informatics/infthesis/infthesis.cls and /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/common/logos/eushield.sty.
• Template files skeleton.tex, mybibfile.bib, skeleton.pdf can be downloaded here . The first two of these generate the skeleton thesis document with an example bibliography file, and illustrate correct use of the style. If you compile them yourself, you should get a document that looks like skeleton.pdf. Your dissertation must follow the example usage given in skeleton.tex.
• Additional documentation about LaTeX and LaTeX use within the School can be found here .

On submission of their dissertation, students will be required to certify that their dissertation satsifies these requirements on the length and style.

The typical structure of an Informatics MSc thesis is as follows:

• 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 .

In addition, the dissertation must be accompanied by an ethics statement and an own-work declaration, as in the provided template. Your IPP should have planned for the projects ethics requirements, and review the academic conduct section above.

Writing a dissertation is time-consuming. Doing it well can take as long as four weeks of full-time work. You should write up explanations, results, and discussion as you go; this reduces the risk you will run out of time, and often clarifies and improves the research. Do not leave writing up until the last couple of weeks.

Some guidelines on the style of an MSc thesis.

• Focus on your own work . If previous work is provides essential context, cite it and direct the reader to it. Never copy and paste material from elsewhere into your dissertation and edit it.
• Keep the sections on Introduction and Background brief . Mention only background and related work that is necessary to understand and evaluate your work. (E.g., definitions what are used later in your theorems/proofs, or data on the performance of other methods so that you can compare it to your results.)
• Apart from what is necessary (see item above), do not do a lengthy repetition/discussion of background and related work in your dissertation. You already received credit for planning and review in IPP. This material must not be repeated without correctly citing this prior work (see Academic Conduct section). Most students will not want to repeat material from their IPP, as they will have an improved and more focussed view of the subject matter by the time they write their final project.
• Write your dissertation in a brief and concise style. Do not waste words. Do not repeat youself. Say it once, but clearly.
• Pay attention to the bibliography. We recommend that you read the guidelines for bibliography entries - it's easy to get this right, and failure to do so is a sign of sloppiness that the reader may suspect extends to other aspects of your work.

Some links to lectures on writing:

• Informatics Lecture 1. Getting started with writing your dissertation - July 2020 (21.11mins).
• Informatics Lecture 2. Writing your dissertation: IMRaD - July 2020 (19.29mins)
• Informatics Lecture 3. Writing Dissertations - Being Concise - July 2020 (27.33mins)

Computing Resources

The standard computing resource we provide is 24/7 access to communally used DICE machines; we cannot guarantee access to or a specific lab or specific machine, reliable constant remote access, or exclusive use of any machine.

By default, you and the project supervisor are responsible for providing any and all resources required to complete the project. If necessary, the supervisor should discuss any exceptional requirements with support and/or the ITO, and receive their approval before writing the proposal.

Technical problems during project work are only considered for resources we provide; no technical support, compensation for lost data, extensions for time lost due to technical problems with external hard- and software as provided will be given, except where this is explicitly stated as part of a project specification and adequately resourced at the start of the project.

Students must submit their project by the deadline (see the timetable of events ). Students need to submit an electronic copy and archive software as detailed below. Paper copies are not required.

Electronic Copy

Students must submit a PDF version of their thesis. These are included in an electronic archive that is accessible to future students. If there are good reasons why a thesis cannot be archived, ensure your supervisor knows the reasons and tick the appropriate box on the submission page.

Generating your thesis in pdf format should be straightforward, using LaTeX (or similar), or a “save to PDF” feature in most word processors. Take care to ensure that all figures, tables and listings are correctly incorporated into the pdf file you plan to submit.

Submit your PDF using this form .

When you submit the electronic copy of your thesis you will also be asked to provide an archive file (tar or zip) containing all the project materials. Students should use this to preserve any software they have generated, source, object and make files, together with any essential data. This material is not marked directly, but may be used to assess the accuracy of claims in the report. It should contain sufficient material for examiners to assess the completion of the project, the quality of the project, and the amount of work required to complete the project.

You should create a directory, for example named PROJECT , in your file space specifically for the purpose. Please follow the accepted practice of creating a README file which documents your files and their function. This directory should be compressed and then submitted, together with the electronic version of the thesis, via the submission webpage .

Your README should make clear where any data that you used came from, how it was processed, and how any outputs can be generated from the code that you have included. You do not normally need to include large datasets, model outputs, or model checkpoints in your archive. However, sometimes such data might be useful for follow-up projects in future years, or could be important for checking your work. Please discuss with your supervisor what to include.

Project Assessment

Projects are marked independently by the supervisor (1st marker) and the (centrally allocated) 2nd marker. The 1st and 2nd marker are not allowed to discuss marks until after both have filed their marking forms. Once both markers have filed their forms, they discuss the final mark, and one of them (usually the 1st marker) files the Agreed Mark Form. (If you fail to agree, then explain why on this form.) In certain circumstances the project will go to moderation (see below).

Projects are assessed in terms of a number of basic and other criteria. Only the dissertation is used for assessment. See also the common marking scheme . Knowledge of these criteria will help you to plan your project and also when writing up. They include:

• Understanding of the problem
• Completion of the work
• Quality of the work
• Quality of the dissertation
• Knowledge of the literature
• Critical evaluation of previous work
• Critical evaluation of own work
• Justification of design decisions
• Solution of conceptual problems
• Amount of work
• Evidence of outstanding merit e.g. originality
• Inclusion of material worthy of publication

Marks in the range of 45-49 allow a re-submission of the thesis by the student within 3 months, which will need to be re-marked (Taught Assessment Regulation 58). The marking guidelines can be found here and the policy on moderation can be found here .

Markers can find electronic copies of reports here . (Access problems? Contact Computing support to give you access.)

Marking is done via the webmark system . (Access problems? If you are UoE staff without an Informatics co-supervisor: Contact Computing support to give you access. If you are external and have an Informatics co-supervisor: Consult with your co-supervisor. It is his/her responsibility to file the marking form.)

Extensions are permitted and Extra Time Adjustments (ETA) for extensions are permitted. Please refer to Rule 3 here for further details. Please see Learn for the number of extension days that are permitted.

Important Dates

All the deadlines for the various tasks, including the deadline for submitting the thesis, can be found in the Timetable of Events .

While a demonstration is not a compulsory component of your MSc summer project, there are many circumstances in which providing your supervisor and your second marker with a demo will enable them to assess your achievements more accurately.

If you do decide to give them a demo, then your examiners will need to be convinced that:

• you actually did something,
• what you did was significant and
• you understand what you did.

You should also try to educate the examiners by clearly presenting:

• what was the problem you were trying to solve,
• how you tried to solve it, and
• what the results were.

As a guide to pitching the level of your explanations, assume that your examiners are ignorant of the particular problem you are investigating, but have a general background in the subject area. Often the second examiner is from outside your project area. So, be sure to introduce your project properly, don't just dive into the middle. What were the aims of the project, how did you go about achieving them, what results did you obtain, what difficulties did you have?

In a typical demo, you might:

• lay down rules about when the audience can ask questions
• explain what the project was about
• explain what you're going to show
• show it, but don't spend lots of time describing low-level implementation detail; stick at the `knowledge level' for the most part
• try to cover as much of the functionality as you reasonably can, so in general don't dwell too long on just one or two aspects
• say what else you might have done if you'd had a bit more time

Not all projects will follow this outline; modify it to suit your own particular project.

A demo should take about 20 minutes. You will probably find that this is quite a short time, but it is good practice to do it in this time because this is typically the time you will have to demo a system in other scenarios; e.g., at conferences. Given that 20 minutes is not long, you should:

• Plan your demo carefully to cover the relevant details in the allotted time.
• Make an outline of the demo including time to explain the problem, the solution and results.
• Skip minor details if there isn't enough time.
• Practise the demo beforehand, perhaps with another student.
• Consult with your supervisor over your outline.
• Make drawings, charts and tables to clarify the whole context and simplify presentation.
• Pre-store results displays on the computer if it takes a long time to generate them. How long it takes the computer to go through a demo varies by the load; hence, it might be better to avoid too much on-line demonstration if possible.

DISS: MSc Dissertation (Informatics)

The project is an essential component of the Masters courses. It is a substantial piece of full-time independent work starting in June. A dissertation describing the work must be submitted by a deadline in mid-August.

Students are expected to stay in Edinburgh for the duration of their degree programme. This includes during the writing of the MSc dissertation until the submission deadline. If you are on a Tier 4 visa and leave the country for an extended period of time, the School is obligated to contact Student Immigration Service who will notify UK Visa and Immigration (UKVI).) See MSc handbook .

All dates are set for 12:00 (noon).

• Schools & departments

Common Marking Scheme

The University of Edinburgh uses a Common Marking Scheme (CMS) for taught student assessment. The below lays out the interpretation of the general scheme in the context of the School of Informatics, without changing the basic principles.

 Extended Common Marking Scheme – School of Informatics

Information for staff and students.

The University CMS is set out below with brief descriptors clarifying the interpretation within the School of Informatics. The remainder of this document provides guidance on implementation and further interpretation with respect to subjectively assessed work.

Implementation

Within Informatics we use a range of different types of assessment. For some types of assessment (notably, auto-marked assignments where the mark depends only on passing certain tests), it may be difficult to achieve alignment with the above scale. Deviation from the scheme is permitted for individual items of assessment, provided that:

• the assessment in question constitutes a relatively small proportion of the course mark;
• students are advised in advance of the deviation from the CMS, and how marks on this assignment should be interpreted; and
• overall course marks reflect the CMS. That is, as a whole the course assessment appropriately differentiates between students at each level and provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate achievement at the top two levels. At the course level, the ‘work’ referred to in the CMS above indicates the student’s work for the course as a whole, including examinations.

Note that achieving the higher levels of the marking scheme requires work of standard beyond that normally expected for the course. This will usually require the student to demonstrate more advanced attributes, rather than simply an increased volume of work. The assessment must have scope for students to demonstrate such advanced attributes.  This may require a component of the assessment to have a different style, such as more open-ended questions.

Guidance for subjectively assessed work

In addition to the general descriptors above, we include the following more detailed descriptors, which should be used to maintain consistency of marking for subjectively assessed work such as lab and project reports, essays, open-ended questions on assignments and exams, and some larger practical assignments. These are adapted from earlier College guidance (in particular, by adding further guidance regarding software projects) and are indicative of the level of performance expected from students. They are not, however, a checklist of qualities that each student must demonstrate, and not all assessments will cover or consider all of the aspects listed below. The way performance is demonstrated will vary from course to course, and from one mode of assessment to another.

Grade / Mark / Descriptor

A1 / 90-100 / Excellent (Outstanding)

Often faultless. The work is well beyond that expected at the appropriate level of study. See also the guidance above.

A2 / 80-89 / Excellent (High)

A truly scholarly and/or professional piece of work, often with an absence of errors. As ‘A3’ but shows (depending upon the item of assessment): significant personal insight/creativity/originality and/or extra depth and academic maturity in the elements of assessment.

A3 / 70-79 / Excellent

• Knowledge: Comprehensive range of up-to-date material handled in a scholarly and/or professional way.
• Understanding and handling of key concepts: Shows a good command of the subject and current theory.
• Focus on the subject or task: Clear and analytical; fully explores the subject or task.
• Critical analysis and discussion: Shows evidence of deep thinking and/or an appropriately logical and rigorous approach in critically evaluating and integrating the evidence and ideas. Deals confidently with the complexities and subtleties of issues. Shows elements of personal insight/creativity/ originality.
• Literature synthesised, analysed and referenced: Comprehensive grasp of the up-to-date literature which is used in a scholarly way.
• Structure: Clear and coherent showing logical, ordered thought. Additionally for code: likely to support re-use. No unused variables or dead code.
• Presentation: Clear and well presented with few, relatively minor flaws. For writing: Accurate referencing; using the correct referencing system. Figures and tables well-constructed and accurate. Good standard of spelling and grammar. Alternatively for code: well-documented, readable code.
• Design of software or experiments: sensible, with appropriate justification.
• Correctness and robustness: Compiles and executes without errors or warnings. Strong evidence of testing and (if appropriate) optimisation. Correct functionality and robust to unexpected input.

B / 60-69 / Very Good

• Knowledge: Very good range of up-to-date material, perhaps with some gaps, handled in a competent way.
• Understanding and handling of key concepts: Shows a firm grasp of the subject and current theory but there may be gaps.
• Focus on the subject: Clear focus on the subject with no or only trivial deviation.
• Critical analysis and discussion: Shows initiative, the ability to think clearly, critically evaluate ideas, to bring different ideas together, and to draw sound conclusions.
• Literature synthesised, analysed and referenced: Evidence of further reading. Shows a firm grasp of the literature, using good, up-to-date references to support the arguments.
• Structure: Clear and coherent showing logical, ordered thought. Additionally for code: re-usability may be somewhat limited. No unused variables or dead code.
• Design of software or experiments: sensible and usually well-justified, though may have some minor weaknesses or omissions in the justification.
• Correctness and robustness: Compiles and executes without errors or warnings. Some evidence of testing and (if appropriate) optimisation. Robust to unexpected input and largely correct behaviour, perhaps with a few minor bugs.

C / 50-59 / Good

• Knowledge: Sound but limited. Inaccuracies, if any, are minor.
• Understanding and handling of key concepts: Understands the subject but does not have a firm grasp and depth of understanding of all the key concepts.
• Focus on the subject: Addresses the subject with relatively little irrelevant material.
• Critical analysis and discussion: Limited critical analysis and evaluation of sources of evidence.
• Literature synthesised, analysed and referenced: References are used appropriately to support the argument but they may be limited in number or reflect restricted independent reading.
• Structure: Reasonably clear and coherent, generally structuring ideas and information or code in a logical way. Additionally for code: Few or no unused variables or dead code.
• Presentation: Generally well presented but there may be some flaws, for example in figures, tables, referencing technique and standard of English. Alternatively for code: generally well-documented, readable code, but with some weaknesses.
• Design of software or experiments: sensible for the most part but justification may be weak or absent in places.
• Correctness and robustness: Compiles and executes without errors or warnings. Code is somewhat robust to unexpected input and generally shows correct behaviour, but may have a few bugs or be inefficient.

D / 40-49 / Pass (for UG or Diploma)

• Knowledge: Basic; may have factual inaccuracies and omissions.
• Understanding and handling of key concepts: Superficial; there may be some gaps in understanding. Lacks detail, elaboration or explanation of the key concepts and ideas; some may have been omitted.
• Focus on the subject: Addresses the subject but may deviate from the core issues.
• Critical analysis and discussion: Limited or lacking. The arguments and conclusions may be weak or lack clarity with unsubstantiated statements. The emphasis is likely to be more on description than analysis.
• Literature synthesised, analysed and referenced: Basic and limited. May lack appropriate citations and evidence of independent reading.
• Structure: Lacks clarity of structure. Shows poor logical development of arguments or structure of code.
• Presentation: Inadequate; may show flaws in the overall standard of presentation or in specific areas such as figures, referencing technique and standard of English. Alternatively for code: documentation is limited or unclear. Code difficult to read in places.
• Design of software or experiments: shows weaknesses in the design. Justification may be weak or largely absent.
• Correctness and robustness: Compiles and executes without errors or warnings. Code is not robust to unexpected input and generally shows correct behaviour, but may have a few bugs or missing components, or be very inefficient.

E / 30-39 / Marginal Fail

• Knowledge: Poor and inadequate. Content too limited, there may be inaccuracies.
• Understanding and handling of key concepts: Poor and inadequate; does not show sufficient understanding. Concepts omitted or poorly expressed.
• Focus on the subject: Does not adequately address the subject.
• Critical analysis and discussion: Poor and inadequate. May be no real attempt to critically evaluate the work.
• Literature synthesised, analysed and referenced: Poor and inadequate; appropriate literature citations lacking or trivial.
• Structure: A lack of coherence or poor structure.
• Presentation: Overall standard of presentation may be poor. May be problems in specific areas such as writing style and expression (making it hard to follow the content), errors in referencing technique, and poor standard of English (spelling, punctuation and grammar). Alternatively for code: documentation is very limited, code difficult to read.
• Design of software or experiments: flawed design, with little or no justification provided.
• Correctness and robustness: Compiles and executes without errors or warnings, but supports only a limited subset of the functionality required.

F / 20-29 / Clear Fail

• Knowledge: Very poor. Irrelevant or erroneous material may be included. May be very limited in scope consisting, for example, of just a few good lines.
• Understanding and handling of key concepts: Very poor, may be confused.
• Focus on the subject: Does not address the subject.
• Critical analysis and discussion: Extremely limited or omitted. May be confused.
• Literature synthesised, analysed and referenced: Extremely limited or omitted.
• Structure: Confusing or no attempt to order the material in a systematic way.
• Presentation: Writing style and presentation may be unacceptable. Alternatively for code: documentation is very limited or absent, code difficult to read.
• Correctness and robustness: Compiles and executes without errors or warnings, but supports little, if any, meaningful functionality.

G / 10-19 / Bad Fail

• Knowledge: Serious lack of knowledge. Irrelevant or erroneous material may be included.
• Understanding and handling of key concepts: None or trivial evidence of understanding.
• Critical analysis and discussion: May be no coherent discussion.
• Literature synthesised, analysed and referenced: May be omitted.
• Correctness and robustness:  The submitted code is of limited size and cannot be executed.

H / 0-9 / Very Bad Fail

The presented work is of very little relevance, if any, to the subject in question. It is incomplete or inadequate in every respect. A blank answer must be awarded zero.

Edinburgh Research Archive

•   ERA Home
• Health in Social Science, School of

Health in Social Science thesis collection

By Issue Date Authors Titles Subjects Publication Type Sponsor Supervisors

Search within this Collection:

Recent Submissions

Struggling for a good life: the experiences of people with intellectual disabilities who developed dementia in residential care homes in hong kong , lived experiences of older adults living with diabetic foot ulcers in saudi arabia: an interpretive phenomenological analysis study , exploring sibling relationships and experiences in adolescent non-fatal self-harm: a systematic review and grounded theory study , it's interpersonal: honouring the voices of care-experienced young people with a history of developmental trauma in research , show to tell: a psychoanalytic reflection on photography as a tool for unconscious storytelling in personal and clinical practice , understanding ethnocentric judgments and the impact on autistic people: a trauma-informed foucauldian discourse analysis (tifda). , minding parents' ups and downs in the perinatal period: a multi-method exploration of interpersonal and intergenerational pathways of vulnerability and adaptability , understanding functional neurological disorder and its treatment implications: a thesis portfolio , parents experiences of birth trauma in the uk: a thematic synthesis of parents experiences of healthcare staff and services surrounding traumatic birth and a qualitative exploration of solo mothers experiences of birth trauma , improving employee wellbeing from the top down: the importance of organisational culture in the planning and delivery of workplace health programmes , centrality of agency in the provision of compassionate care in a chilean paediatric hospital a qualitative realist approach , 'you are responsible for your own life, your grades, your everything': an exploration of the transition and wellbeing experience of ib dp students , 'shadow' side of healthcare: an exploration of workplace bullying and the paradox of trauma-informed care using thematic synthesis and interpretative phenomenological analysis , childhood narratives of adults with spina bifida: a qualitative analysis , mbwiti on the grief mattress: an autohistoria-teoria voicing the grief of identities fragmented by whiteness , becoming transplanted: a constructivist grounded theory approach on the diabetic with renal failure - from transplant waiting list to transplantation , evaluation of homelessness prevention for single adults in scotland using data mining techniques on administrative data sets , disordered eating among people with adhd and those on the autism spectrum , systematic review of self compassion and stress in parents, and an exploration of emotion regulation and psychopathology in adolescence , womb-life and birth stories: how explorations of our pre- and perinatal experiences can contribute to narratives of our self and relational ways-of-being .

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to search
• Skip to talk navigation

Advertisement

Higher education

Talk to other parents whose children are preparing for university on our Higher Education forum.

Uni of Edinburgh not marking dissertations/final pieces of work - anyone else's DC affected?

Iliketulips · 28/04/2023 19:16

DD heard this afternoon that her dissertation and final pieces of work are not to be marked by Uni of Edinburgh. She is absolutely devastated right now as she wanted her true degree result and feedback on hours of work. She feels her most recent work is the best, so will never know if she could have got her grade up. Moving forward she was seriously considering studying a masters abroad abroad and also working abroad, but now uncertain if that's possible as she thinks they'll wanted an athenticated degree.

That's awful! What subject?

This cohort have had such a rough deal: strikes, followed by covid and now this (niece is about to graduate so I'm assuming same year as your DD).

If that is true, they should take a group action for a refund of fees and impact on their career earnings.

I think it's across the board of subjects. Apparently some students turned up to their Spanish oral exam in the week to find there weren't enough professors so only a few did theirs. Doesn't sound like it'll make any difference for them if their work isn't being marked, but still. DD is working on her final essay and going to complete (although not much incentive) just in case. BathDangle DD started in 2019. Yes, sadly covid, not much face to face support, lots of strikes so lectures/appointments cancelled.

FirstnameSuesecondnamePerb · 28/04/2023 19:45

I was thinking similar.

Mumsnet Weekly Hot Threads

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

DD has been looking at the question of a refund and doesn't think they're entitled as the uni will say its out of their control.

Have you seen the message? That seems completely unreasonable and beyond what would be considered acceptable. I'm astonished if that's what they are proposing to do.

I had heard this anecdotally earlier this week.

Is it possible that they will be marked after the strike ends, so students get an interim pass degree and then their actual marks and class follow in Nov/Dec?

LIZS · 28/04/2023 19:56

Marking and Assessment Boycott. It's awful I'm so sorry. I know it's no consolation but many (most?) of us working in HE are thoroughly pissed off with the union.

Like a lot of students, DD has had her struggles while at uni, but she's got to where she is through determination and hard work. DD heard this afternoon and I've had her on the phone in tears - this is a rarity. Not to the proper recognition she (and many others) deserve is hard to swallow. They'll be no feedback (not even simplified and delayed) on all those late night hours putting together and perfecting their dissertation. She's another with work still to complete, her heart really isn't in it, but she's going to do it just in case. From what she's said, it'll be a fail/pass mark and she's under the impression graduation goes ahead in July (although she doesn't want to go right now).

Unfortunately, many universities will be affected. Marking and assessment boycott to hit 145 UK universities from tomorrow https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/12879/Marking-and-assessment-boycott-to-hit-145-UK-universities-from-tomorrow-UCU-confirms

Marking and assessment boycott to hit 145 UK universities from tomorrow

UCU has today confirmed that a marking and assessment boycott will commence tomorrow [Thursday 20 April] at 145 UK universities after employers failed to produce an improved offer in the pay & conditions dispute.

https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/12879/Marking-and-assessment-boycott-to-hit-145-UK-universities-from-tomorrow-UCU-confirms

I'm so sorry to hear this - students have had such a rough time over the last few years.

titchy · 28/04/2023 20:10

This. A lot of staff will still be marking, so I doubt that the university has issued a blanket statement saying that no dissertations will be marked. Priority is also being given to marking finalists’ work. Any work which isn’t marked by the exam board will be marked once the boycott ends. Students will be awarded their degree this summer on the basis of existing credits, with the possibility of the classification being upgraded once any missing marks are available. I manage an academic department and am expected to hire markers or ask non-striking staff to take on extra marking to get our finalists over the line, and will be doing as much marking as I’m able to myself.

Yea terrible my son got the email last week about the marking and assessment boycott. These kids have had no end of a nightmare with covid and grading of their a levels and all that fiasco. To missing their first year of university with it all being online and now ending their university years with this. They really do deserve a break.

This is absolutely disgusting This cohort of young people have suffered enough

This is so sad. Disgraceful.

I work in student admin, specifically processing their marks. We and other institutons are of course looking at contingencies and confirming degrees based on their marks so far where possible. Of and when we have a full set of grades we will reassess - if they would have scored higher we will upgrade, but there is no suggestion of downgrading if they actually score lower. Obviously this is not ideal, but... We also have no idea of time frames. If marks trickle in over the summer the admin staff may be on leave (a lot of my team certainly will be). So it could be very late. There is nothing to lose by complaining. The students have the biggest voice in all of this, I hope they use it. But a compensation payment of £250 or whatever of course won't make up for this mess. It's shit. I feel so bad for this generation, I thought mine got a raw deal but these cohorts have really been through it. And the world they're graduating to isn't exactly rosy...

Bloody hell. DS has been working so bloody hard on his.

GCAcademic and AprilDecember I suspect you're at a different unis to Edinburgh. If the students are correct about Edinburgh not marking their final work, would you say they have any recourse/argument that they could put forward to get their work assessed later? If you don't want to put this on the forum but willing to comment, please PM me. DD is considering later study abroad. She's concerned she won't have an authenticated degree that'll be recognised by unis/organisations abroad.

Hello, yes I should have specified I'm not at Edinburgh. I'm at an English Russell Group uni. Obviously each place will have their nuances but a lot of the time they try to get consensus and align their solutions. Senior managers where I am, those who have been through this kind of thing before, have a gut feeling that the academics will mark the work, they'll just withold them from admin so they can't actually be released to students, employers, other unis etc. Then when the dispute is resolved they will hand the marks over and admin can release them (but a lot of admin will be otherwise engaged, with annual leave, the new cohorts, resits...). It will be clunky. We are also still expecting some (a lot?) of marks to actually come in. Not all markers will observe the boycott. It's impossible to tell, but at our place some departments are more unionised than others. Which will feel grossly unfair to some groups - engineering students might be more likely to get a full transcript than cultural studies (just plucked those examples out of the air, but you get the picture).

Strikes are horrible and necessary if anything is to change. Your DC can write to the VC and push for an early resolution.

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

School of Social and Political Science

Marking descriptors.

Below are the general marking descriptors used on undergraduate courses in the School of Social and Political Science. 

Detailed assessment critera (assessment descriptors) may be developed for specific assessments undertaken on a course. The course Learn site will make it clear which marking descriptors will be used for each assessment.

• Coursework marking scheme
• Dissertation marking scheme
• Examination Marking Descriptor

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.

content to be advised