Marking criteria MSc CDM
In all grades, deficiencies in programming can be compensated for by unusually good work in the academic research components of the project such as: background review, justification of design choices based on relevant research material, evaluation etc.
However, the project must have some practical programming or technical component.
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, in principle publishable.
Program: complex; performs well; evidence of proper testing; well structured (sensible division into files/procedures, etc; appropriate choice of data-structures); well commented.
Write-up: well structured (descriptions of issues/algorithms/code properly distinguished; proper beginning, middle and end); proper references, proper discussion of existing relevant work, neatly presented; interesting, clear; proper disinterested critique of what is good and bad about approach taken, thoughts about where to go next with such work.
60% - 69% - Good
Very competent in all respects, substantially correct and complete knowledge but not going beyond what was taught.
55% - 59% - Satisfactory
Competent in most respects. Minor gaps in knowledge but reasonable understanding of fundamental concepts.
50% - 54% - Borderline
Significant gaps in knowledge but some understanding of fundamental concepts.
30% - 49% - Fail
Inadequate knowledge of the subject. Work is seriously flawed, displaying major lack of understanding, irrelevance or incoherence.
Below 30% - Unacceptable (or not submitted)
Work is either not submitted, or - if submitted - so seriously flawed that it does not constitute a bona-fide script.