• 7. Classification

## Section 7: Classification

Published for 2023-24

 Students who have completed the requirements for a qualification should, on the recommendation of the relevant Board of Examiners, be awarded a Classification.

## 7.1 Overarching Principles

 :    Classification schemes must be transparent, clearly defined and fair to all students.

## 7.2 Calculating Classifications

7.2.1 averages and rounding.

 1 On programmes operating the :
 a) The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a credit-weighted mean of all counting marks, as specified in each individual Classification Scheme. b) Where a Classification Scheme includes multiple years of study, the credit-weighted Year Mean must be calculated first. Each Year Mean must then be weighted according to the Classification Scheme, and the Final Weighted Mark must then be calculated from the mean of weighted Year Means. c) The Final Weighted Mark must be rounded to 2 decimal places.
 2 On programmes operating the , the Classification must be determined from the number of module credits falling in each Classification Band.

## 7.2.2 Classification Year Mean (UG programmes only)

 1 On Undergraduate programmes, the ‘Classification Year Mean’ is the credit-weighted average of only those module marks which count towards the classification in a single year of study. It is distinct from the ‘Progression Year Mean’ (see ) which is a mean of all module marks in a year of study. 2 The Classification Year Mean is calculated as follows:
 a) The ‘counting’ marks are identified (e.g. students might drop their worst 30 credits in Year 1, so only 90 credits ‘count’). b) Each counting mark is given a weighting according to its credit value. c) The credit-weighted counting marks are averaged to create the ‘Year Mean’ for each year of study. d) Each Year Mean is given a weighting (e.g. Year 1: 1, Year 2: 3, Year 3: 5). e) The weighted Year Means are averaged to give the ‘Final Weighted Mark’. f) The Final Weighted Mark determines the Classification awarded.

## 7.2.3 Weighting of Reassessment and Deferral Marks

 1 Marks achieved for reassessed modules must be weighted according to the year in which the module was first attempted. 2 Marks achieved for substitute modules must be weighted according to the year in which the module was first attempted. 3 Marks achieved for modules deferred due to Extenuating Circumstances must be weighted according to the year in which the student was first registered on the module.

## 7.2.4 Credit Awarded via the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

 1 Credits awarded via the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) from any institution other than UCL must be counted as part of the qualification requirements but must be excluded from the calculation of the Classification. 2 Credits accrued at UCL and awarded via the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) must be counted as part of the qualification requirements and included in the calculation of the Classification. 3 At the time of admission with RPL, the student should be advised of the number of credits which they are required to pass in order to be eligible for an Award, and the algorithm which will be used to calculate their Classification. 4 The application procedures for the Recognition of Prior Learning are defined in .

## 7.2.5 Pass / Fail Degrees

 1 , a qualification may be awarded on a Pass/Fail basis i.e. without a Classification. This must be clearly defined in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool.

## 7.2.6 Study Abroad and Placements

 1 Where a programme includes an Integrated Study Abroad or Placement Year or Module, the Classification must be calculated using the standard Classification Schemes below. 2 Where a programme includes an Additional/ Extra-mural Study Abroad or Placement Year or Module, the following rules must be applied when determining the Classification:
 a) Additional/ Extra-mural Study Abroad or Placement Years must be weighted at 0 in the Classification. b) Additional/ Extra-mural Study Abroad or Placement Modules must be weighted at 0 in the Classification. c) Where a programme includes a Study Abroad or Placement Project Module, the Study Abroad or Placement Year AND the Project Module must be weighted at 0 in the Classification. d) Where an Undergraduate Additional/ Extra-mural Study Abroad or Placement Year is in the Final Year, the Penultimate Year must be treated as the ‘Final Year’ in the determination of the classification.

 1 , a UCL programme delivered under an academic partnership agreement may operate an adjusted classification scheme to take account of the learning undertaken at the partner institution. Further details can be found in . Adjusted classification schemes must be included in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool and clearly explained in the Student Handbook or equivalent.

## 7.3 Pre-Honours Classification Scheme

 1 A student who meets the Award Requirements for a programme of study leading to a OR a should be awarded a Pass, Merit or Distinction Classification.
 a) A Cert HE or Dip HE Interim Qualification is not eligible for a Classification (see ).
 2. The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: :Year 1: Best 90 credits, weighted at 1. Year 1: Best 90 credits, weighted at 1Year 2: Best 90 credits, weighted at 3. 3. The following rules must be used to determine the Classification: A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50%orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 68.50% andModule marks of at least 70.00% in at least 50% of the Final Year credits. A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50%orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 58.50% andModule marks of at least 60.00% in at least 50% of the Final Year credits. Meets the Award Requirements.

## 7.4    Honours Degree Classification Scheme

7.4.1 general principles .

 1 A student who meets the Award Requirements for an Honours Degree should be awarded an Honours Classification.
 a) Some Undergraduate qualifications (e.g. the MBBS) do not include a Classification due to the requirements of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).
 2 All programmes should operate Classification Scheme A.
 a) , where a Professional Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) places restrictions on the operation of Condonement, a programme may instead operate Classification Scheme B or C. The scheme in use must be clearly indicated in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool. b) , Non-modular Programmes may instead operate one of the Classification Schemes defined in . The scheme must be clearly indicated in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool.

## 7.4.2 Honours Classification Scheme A

 1. The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: Year 1: Best 90 credits, weighted at 1Year 2: Best 90 credits, weighted at 3Year 3: All 120 credits, weighted at 5. Year 1: Best 90 credits, weighted at 1Year 2: Best 90 credits, weighted at 3Year 3: All 120 credits, weighted at 5Year 4: All 120 credits, weighted at 5. Year 1: All 120 credits. All 120 credits in the iBSc Year (Year 3 of the MBBS), Weighted at 1. All 120 credits, Weighted at 1.

## 7.4.3 Honours Classification Scheme B

 1. The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: Year 1: All 120 credits, weighted at 1Year 2: All 120 credits, weighted at 3Year 3: All 120 credits, Weighted at 5. Year 1: All 120 credits, weighted at 1Year 2: All 120 credits, weighted at 3Year 3: All 120 credits, weighted at 5Year 4: All 120 credits, weighted at 5.

## 7.4.4 Honours Classification Scheme C

 1. The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places: Year 1: Weighted at 0Year 2: All 120 credits, weighted at 3Year 3: All 120 credits, weighted at 5. Year 1: Weighted at 0Year 2: All 120 credits, weighted at 3Year 3: All 120 credits, weighted at 5Year 4: All 120 credits, weighted at 5.

## 7.4.5 Determination of Honours Classifications

 1. For all Honours Degree Classification Schemes, the following rules must be used to determine the Classification: A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50%orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 68.50% andModule marks of at least 70.00% in at least 50% of the Final Year credits. A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50%orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 58.50% andModule marks of at least 60.00% in at least 50% of the Final Year credits. A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 49.50%orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 48.50% andModule marks of at least 50.00% in at least 50% of the Final Year credits. A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 40.00%. 2. Where a Study Abroad or Placement Year is in the Final Year, the Penultimate Year must be treated as the ‘Final Year’ in the determination of the classification. See .

 1 A student who meets the Award Requirements for a programme of study leading to a Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma should be awarded a Pass, Merit or Distinction Classification.
 a) Where a Grad Cert Interim Qualification is an Advertised Outcome from a programme of study, students are eligible for a Classification. Where an Interim Qualification is an Advertised Outcome, students are eligible for a Classification (see ). b) Some Graduate qualifications may not include a Classification due to the requirements of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).
 2. On programmes operating the Numeric Marking Scale, the Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a credit-weighted mean of all module marks, rounded to 2 decimal places. 3. On programmes operating the Letter Grade Marking Scale, the Classification must be calculated using all credit-weighted module grades. 4. The following rules must be used to determine the Classification: A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50%orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 68.50% andModule marks of at least 70.00% in at least 50% of the credits. A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50%orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 58.50% andModule marks of at least 60.00% in at least 50% of the credits. Meets the Award Requirements. A Grade A in at least two thirds of the credits. A Grade greater than or equal to B in at least two thirds of the credits. Meets the Award Requirements.

## 7.6 Taught Postgraduate Classification Scheme

 1 A student who meets the Award Requirements for a programme of study leading to a Postgraduate Certificate, Postgraduate Diploma or Taught Masters Degree should be awarded a Pass, Merit or Distinction Classification.
 a) Where a PG Cert or PG Dip Interim Qualification is an Advertised Outcome from a programme of study, students are eligible for a Classification. Where an Interim Qualification is an Advertised Outcome, students are eligible for a Classification (see ). b) Some Postgraduate qualifications (e.g. the Postgraduate Certificate in Education) do not include a Classification due to the requirements of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).
 2 All programmes should operate the main UCL Classification Scheme defined in this section.
 a) , non-modular programmes may instead operate one of the Classification Schemes defined in . The scheme must be clearly indicated in the Portico Progression and Award Rules Tool.
 3. On programmes operating the Numeric Marking Scale, the Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a credit-weighted mean of all module marks, rounded to 2 decimal places. 4. On programmes operating the Letter Grade Marking Scale, the Classification must be calculated using all credit-weighted module grades. 5. The following rules must be used to determine the Classification: A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50%orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 68.50% andModule marks of at least 70.00% in at least 50% of all credits. A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50%orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 58.50% andModule marks of at least 60.00% in at least 50% of all credits. Meets the Award Requirements A Grade A in at least two thirds of the credits. A Grade greater than or equal to B in at least two thirds of the credits. Meets the Award Requirements.

## 7.7 Research Masters (MRes) Classification Scheme

 1. A student who meets the Award Requirements for a programme of study leading to a Masters by Research Degree (MRes) must be awarded a Pass, Merit or Distinction Classification. 2. On programmes operating the , the Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a credit-weighted mean of all module marks, rounded to 2 decimal places. 3. On programmes operating the , the Classification must be calculated using all credit-weighted module grades. 4. The following rules must be used to determine the Classification: A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 69.50%andA mark greater than or equal to 70% in the DissertationorA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 68.50% andModule marks of at least 70.00% in at least 50% of the taught credits andA mark greater than or equal to 70.00% in the Dissertation. A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50% andA mark greater than or equal to 60% in the Dissertation.orA Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 58.50% andModule marks of at least 60.00% in at least 50% of the taught credits andA mark greater than or equal to 60.00% in the Dissertation. Meets the Award Requirements. A Grade A in at least two thirds of the credits which must include the Dissertation. A Grade greater than or equal to B in at least two thirds of the credits which must include the Dissertation. Meets the Award Requirements.

## 7.8 Non-Modular Programmes

7.8.1 ba (hons) english .

 1 The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from the following ten, equally-weighted marks:
 a) 8 course units in Years 2 and 3, AND b) The Research Essay mark, AND c) The Course Assessment mark.
 2. The Honours Classification must be determined using the following rules: 3 marks above 69 and numerical aggregate of at least 666. 6 marks above 59 and numerical aggregate of at least 590. 8 marks above 49 and numerical aggregate of at least 520. 9 marks above 39 and numerical aggregate of at least 460. 3. The work of candidates who meet one but not both of the criteria for any given class must be referred to the External Examiner for review. The work of candidates who are close to both of the criteria for any given class but fulfil neither may be referred to the External Examiner for review. Please see  for further details.

## 7.8.2 BA (Hons) Fine Art

 1 The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a weighted mean of the following marks, rounded to 2 decimal places:
 a) History and Theory of Art Coursework in Year 2, weighted at 10%, AND b) History and Theory of Art Independent Study in Year 3, weighted at 10%, AND c) Degree Exhibition in Year 4, weighted at 80%.
 2 The mark/s from the Additional Study is/are used as a moderator in borderline cases. 3 The Honours Classification must be determined using the standard rules in .

## 7.8.3 BFA (Hons) Fine Art

 1. The Final Weighted Mark must be based on performance in the final year Studio Work, weighted at 100%. 2. Critical Studies is marked Pass/Fail and subsumed into the final mark for Studio Work. 3. The Honours Classification must be determined using the following rules: A Final Mark greater than or equal to 70.00%. A Final Mark greater than or equal to 60.00%. A Final Mark greater than or equal to 50.00%. A Final Mark greater than or equal to 40.00%. 4. As the Classification is based on one mark, Borderline Criteria do not apply.

## 7.8.4 MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery)

 1 The MBBS does not include an Honours Classification, and the regulations in  do not apply to this programme. 2 The iBSc does include an Honours Classification and is subject to the standard UCL regulations in .

## 7.8.5 MA Fine Art

 1 The Final Weighted Mark must be calculated from a weighted mean of the following counting marks, rounded to 2 decimal places:
 a) History and Theory of Art Spring Course Essay in Year 1, weighted at 5%, AND b) History and Theory of Art Research Essay in Year 1, weighted at 5%, AND c) History and Theory of Art Report in Year 2, weighted at 15%, AND d) Studio work in Year 2, weighted at 75%.
 2 The Classification must be determined using the standard rules in .

## 7.8.6 MFA Fine Art in the Slade School of Fine Art

 1. The Final Weighted Mark must be based on performance in the Studio Work in Year 2, weighted at 100%. 2. Critical Studies is marked Pass/Fail and subsumed into the final mark for Studio Work. 3. The Classification must be determined using the following rules: A Final Mark greater than or equal to 70.00%. A Final Mark greater than or equal to 60.00%. A Final Mark greater than or equal to 50.00%. 4. As the Classification is based on one mark, Borderline Criteria do not apply.

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.

## 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.

 with any comments or corrections. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all material is copyright © The University of Edinburgh

## Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• How to apply
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Faculty of Philosophy
• Accessible Documents Checklist
• Video conferencing accessibility assessment guide
• Cambridge Women Philosophers
• Disability Access Guide
• Health and Safety
• How to find us

Important Dates

• Information Technology overview
• Zoom User Guide
• Skype & PhoneConference Call and Screen Sharing
• Microsoft Teams getting started
• Panopto Recording & Publishing Overview
• Zoom Security Tips for public meetings
• Job Opportunities
• Philosophy Green Team overview
• Waste & Recyling
• Green Team Events
• Welfare overview
• Welfare for Students
• Welfare for Staff
• People overview
• Teaching & Research Staff
• Director of Studies Area overview
• Director of Studies Part 1B
• Director of Studies Part II
• Support Staff
• Paper Co-Ordinators
• Research overview
• Research Projects and Networks
• Seminars and Discussion Groups
• Employment destinations of recent Faculty PhD students
• Research Funding Opportunities
• Recent Faculty books
• Open access at Cambridge
• Current Students overview
• MPhil Course Information (Includes examination protocols)
• PhD Course Information
• Organisational Matters
• Supervision
• Lectures and Seminars
• Faculty Resources
• PG Training Guide
• Room Booking Guidance
• Working Away
• Working While Studying
• Financial Support
• Deposit of Electronic PhD Theses
• Appointment of PhD Examiners Form
• Risk assessment form RA1
• Risk assessment examples
• Conference expenses funding application form
• Postgraduate hardship funding application form
• MPhil Essays and Dissertations (Raven Login)
• MPhil Data Retention
• University Timetable
• Part IA Seminar (Discussion Group) Readings
• Lecture List
• Course Outlines and Reading Lists (for Philosophy Students and Staff)
• Course Outlines and Reading Lists (for auditors)
• Craig Taylor Prize
• Extended Essays & Dissertations
• Data Retention Policy
• Part IA Past Exam Papers
• Faculty Plagiarism Policy
• Part IB Past Exam Papers
• Part II Past Exam Papers
• Guidelines for Examiners & Assessors (including Marking Criteria)
• Sample paper for Part II paper 9
• IB5 Sample Exam
• Tackling the Philosophy Essay Guide
• Tackling the Philosophy Essay Guide (mobi version)
• Tackling the Philosophy Essay Guide (epub version)
• Tackling the Philosophy Essay Guide (Word version)
• 09 Plagiarism 2018revJuly18
• Student Feedback & Support overview
• Student Representation & Student-Staff Committee
• Philosophy Student-Staff Committee Meeting Minutes
• SSC minutes 1May18
• Final SSCMinutes 30Oct18
• SSC Unconfirmed minutes 05 Feb 19
• SSC unconfirmedminutes 7May19
• Student Complaints Procedure
• SSC unconfirmed minutes 5Nov19
• SSC minutes 04 Feb 2020 4
• SSC minutes 5May2020 1
• Philosophy Faculty Guidelines for Discussion Sessions
• Prospective Students overview
• Events overview
• Past Events overview
• Past Events - Conferences, Workshops and Special Lectures
• The Roles of Knowledge
• The Roles of Knowledge Abstracts
• Limits of Duty programme
• The Limits of Duty
• Decision Theory Seminar
• No-platform and Hate Speech
• What is Domination?
• 6th Cambridge Graduate Conference on the Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics
• Universals_v2.pdf
• JohnSearle Lecture
• Immateriality, Thinking and the Self in the Long Middle Ages
• Papers Heal Metaphysical atomism and the attraction of materialism
• Oelze Summary of Talk
• WIP Conference Poster
• GoodmakersandgoodtakersTextsHO2.pdf
• Minorities and Philosophy (MAP) Cambridge Conference 2018
• Shyane Personal Identity handout 6th form conf 2019
• Richard Holton Handout 6th form conf 2019
• Library overview
• Accessibility
• Joining the library
• Borrowing from the library
• Philosophy eresources
• IT, printing and copying facilities
• Resources for researchers
• Contact the library
• Intranet overview
• Director of Studies Area
• Academic Teaching Resources and Protocols.
• Samples for MPhil Examiners overview
• Philosophy File Share overview

## Criteria for Marking of MPhil

• Current Students
• Prospective Students

Criteria for Marking of MPhil Essays and Dissertations

The word limit for both essays and dissertation should be strictly applied and examiners may decline to read any material in excess of it.  For both essays and the dissertation, candidates are required to clearly state the word length at the end of their piece of submitted work.  In addition, the word length will be verified by the Postgraduate Secretary, using the electronic copy of the work submitted via Moodle.  Dates for submitting both essays and dissertation should be strictly adhered to and examiners may penalise or decline to read work which is submitted late.

For the purpose of examining, the work done in the MPhil is divided into two components: the essays, taken as a group and the dissertation. Award of the MPhil Degree requires that EITHER both components reach the Pass standard OR one component reaches the Marginal Fail standard but this is compensated for by the other component reaching the Clear Pass standard, or higher.  These standards are defined below.

The examiners will award a distinction to any candidate who (i) gains a distinction mark (i.e. 75 or above) in at least one component of the MPhil and (ii) gains an overall mark of 72 or above.

The overall mark for the MPhil Degree is a weighted average of the marks for both essays and the dissertation. The weights are in proportion to the word limits for each, according to the following formula:

Essay component mark = (1/3 x mark for 4,000 word Michaelmas Term essay) + (2/3 x mark for 8,000 word Lent Term essay), rounded to the nearest whole mark.

Overall mark = (½ x essay component mark) + (½ x 12,000 word Easter Term dissertation mark), rounded upwards in case of half marks.

To reach the required standard, MPhil work must be clearly written, must take account of previously published work on the subject, and must represent a contribution to learning. The examining reflects the fact that there are many ways to write a successful MPhil essay or dissertation. A successful piece might, for instance, provide new arguments or develop original positions; it might synthesise existing ideas and arguments in interesting ways; or it might present new explorations, criticisms or analyses of extant ideas. It might be fairly wide-ranging, or narrowly focused.

Assessment will take into account the different ways in which work can be successful. Nevertheless there are criteria of excellence that are relevant to all MPhil writing, and which will be used in determining its mark:

(i) Breadth and depth of research. The piece will need to give an adequate coverage of its philosophical topic, including the relevant existing philosophical literature and demonstrate an adequate understanding of that literature. Adequacy here will depend on the nature of the topic. For example, it may be appropriate for an essay that is focused exclusively on a few recent articles to contain more depth, but less breadth, than an essay that is focused on a wider philosophical tradition. Similarly, the understanding that is required when the focus is on a notoriously difficult historical text will be different to that required when it is on a set of straightforward recent articles. The appropriate breadth and depth of research will also take into account the word limit for the piece, so that expectations are higher for a dissertation than a shorter essay.

(ii) Quality of argumentation. This depends on the precision and sophistication with which the central philosophical points made in the piece are understood, developed, and defended, the strength of the arguments or interpretations that are given, and the extent to which the piece considers and responds to pressing objections. The appropriate type of argumentation will depend on the type of essay; e.g. an essay that intervenes in a contemporary debate may require a different type of argumentation to that required in an essay in the history of philosophy.

(iii) Quality of philosophical writing: This depends on a piece's ability to convey its ideas effectively: it requires a thoughtful structure that accommodates both the complexities of the material and the needs of the reader.  A well written piece will display clarity, concision and elegance.

(iv) Originality. Philosophical originality can be demonstrated in many ways: for example, by posing new questions; by exploring and developing new arguments (even if these do not ultimately work); by providing new criticisms of existing work; by structuring or synthesising existing work in new ways; by providing new and stimulating examples; or by opening up new avenues of philosophical inquiry e.g. an unexplored issue in the history of philosophy.

Of course these criteria are not entirely distinct: it is hard to write well in the absence of a good argument, and originality in the absence of understanding is rarely a virtue. But they are sufficiently distinct that a piece will sometimes shine with respect to one or two of them, whilst not being so successful with respect to the others; conversely, a piece may fail in virtue of one of these criteria, while being adequate with respect to the others.

In light of these criteria, essays and theses will be given marks as follows:

0: Unacceptable Fail

Work fails to contain anything of philosophical merit that is relevant to the question.

1–49: Low Fail

Work in this category will contain something of value, but is clearly deficient in all of the first three categories: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing.

50–56: Clear Fail

Work in this category will contain something of value, but is clearly inadequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing. There will be substantial failings in at least two of them.

57–9 Marginal Fail

Work in this category will contain something of value, but is marginally inadequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing.  This may be the result of performance that is only just below the standard on all three, or because of a more substantial failing in one of them that is not sufficiently compensated by success with respect to the others.

60–64: Low Pass

Work in this category is adequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing.  An essay can be adequate in terms of this overall balance, while being inadequate with respect to one of them.

65–69: Clear Pass

Work in this category is adequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing. In addition, it will show some strength on at least one of them.

70–74 High Pass

Work in this category is more than adequate for the MPhil on the balance of the first three criteria: that is, in terms of i) the breadth and depth of research, ii) the quality of argumentation, and iii) the quality of philosophical writing.  In addition, it will show some strength on at least two of them, and may show some originality. It constitutes some evidence of potential for PhD work.

75–79: Distinction

Work in this category makes a contribution to research. It is strong in terms of the first three criteria, and will show some originality. It constitutes strong evidence of the potential for PhD work.

80 and above: High Distinction

Work in this category makes a significant contribution to research. It is outstanding in terms of all four criteria: the breadth and depth of research and understanding that is displayed, the quality of argumentation, the quality of writing, and it will exhibit significant originality. It will typically be of sufficient quality to form the basis of a publication. It constitutes very strong evidence of the potential for PhD work.

## Latest news

All News Items

Moral Sciences Club

Philosophy Lecture List

Philosophy Podcasts

Intranet Teaching and Examining Arrangements

Tweets by @CambridgePhilos

## Information

• Photos by Ben Colburn displayed with his permission
• Philosophy Contact Details
• [email protected]
• Map of Sidgwick Site
• University Map

• Email & Phone Search

• Contact the University
• Freedom of information
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Research news
• Spotlight on...

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

• The Principal
• Our experts
• Our history
• Facts & figures
• Art Collections & Picture Gallery
• Exhibitions
• Online shop
• Organisation of the College
• Charitable status
• 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
• Immigration & visas
• 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
• The Institute for Cyber Security Innovation
• Conferences & hospitality
• Consultancy
• Enterprise centre / incubation
• Licensing / commercialisation
• Recruiting our students
• Proof of award
• Get involved
• Benefits & services
• Events & reunions
• Higher magazine
• Why support the College?
• Our priorities
• 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.

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.

• 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
• Mobile site view
• Desktop site view
• Media enquiries
• Modern Slavery Act
• IT Services
• Social media
• CampusAnywhere
• Terms and conditions

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.

## 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)
• 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 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)
• 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 findings – following your own research, what did do you discover?

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?

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?

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 ...

many thanks i found it very useful

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!

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?

• 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

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

• Print Friendly

## Get the Reddit app

Got a question about going to uni in the UK? Want to find out more and speak to others about their course/uni? Not sure if you can eat something that's been loafing in your fridge for 3 weeks, and gone a dubious shade of purple-green? This is the place for you. If you want to post a survey for your dissertation, please make sure your post includes all information required by the rules linked in our wiki!

## Dissertation mark

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

## Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

## Enter a 6-digit backup code

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

## Just got my dissertation grade back and I am gutted :-(

Icanonlytry · 28/01/2012 15:56

Can you investigate it and dispute it? If it is so out of character, it is worth looking into.

There should be separate reports from each of your markers and then an agreed feedback sheet to you. I would ask to see them (they cannot be witheld if you ask) as it might throw up discrepancies, or suggest, as Linerunner says that one of them hasnt read it properly. Normally UG dissertations are not marked externally as a matter of course but you can ask for it to go to a third internal marker as far as I know - most departments would do this. However, it would be better for you if you can put forward some reasons why you believe it deserved more than a 2:2 rather than just complaining. TBH if I marked a dissertation at 56% it would be quite poor and I would need to provide significant reasons why it was marked so low. I know its hard doing this with an infant - I've been there and you have my sympathies - but after three years you cant throw it away. Ask for an extension and then as Linerunner says, ask on here - its surprising how varied the knowledge is!

I am a lecturer (not in your field) and I agree with Mytholmroyd, it sounds like there is a big mismatch between the comments and the grade. In my field, a 56 for a dissertation would have comments that were more along the lines of 'your literature review demonstrated some familiarity with the field but the range of sources cited was too narrow and lacked engagement with theoretical perspectives' etc. I would get hold of a copy of the assessment criteria, map the comments against them, and query this. IME most students get their best mark for their dissertation, and it is very unusual for the mark to fall this far below their average. If it's not that an error has been made in marking it, then you might well have grounds for complaint about the adequacy of your supervision.

when I was choosing my title my supervisor said that certain types of dissertations cannot be marked high because the marking criteria was biased to other types so you could do a flawless lit based dissertation but never get a first in it because the criteria is aimed more at lab/field/survey based ones does that ring any bells?

I imagine that leadership doesn't need to be you leading but also being led, if that helps? The reflective account do you have notes of things you've done? As its reflective it can be based in the past and ML would be an understandable reason for it to be a fairly long time ago.

There are quite a few books on reflective writing, if that helps.

I have just received my UG dissertation result and I am devastated. The feedback has not been issued yet but I got 58% and this is 20% lower than my marks for the rest of the year. In the days leading upto the deadline I had a massive dispute with the old programme leader regarding the supervision and I feel really sabotaged... Surely I can't have got 20% less in this assignment than every other assignment this year! I was predicted a first class degree and now it's down the drain.....

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

## MSc Supervision - low mark, advice?

Masters Degrees

PhD Opportunities

PostgraduateForum Is a trading name of FindAUniversity Ltd FindAUniversity Ltd, 77 Sidney St, Sheffield, S1 4RG, UK. Tel +44 (0) 114 268 4940 Fax: +44 (0) 114 268 5766

An active and supportive community.

Use your experience to help others.

or continue as guest

## What is the 70-20-10 budget?

How to know if the 70-20-10 budget is right for you, pitfalls with the 70-20-10 budget, a beginner's guide to the 70-20-10 budgeting rule.

Affiliate links for the products on this page are from partners that compensate us and terms apply to offers listed (see our advertiser disclosure with our list of partners for more details). However, our opinions are our own. See how we rate banking products to write unbiased product reviews.

• The 70-20-10 budget is a guideline that simplifies your income distribution into spending, saving, and donating.
• The 70-20-10 budget is ideal for people who are beginning to learn how to manage their income.
• One of the disadvantages of the 70-20-10 budget is that it doesn't separate discretionary spending from costs of living.

Budgeting is a great way to gain control over your income. But with seemingly endless ways to divide your money, it can be helpful to follow one of the many budgeting guidelines out there. "It doesn't have to be a bajillion categories, and really time consuming. There are ways to make this actually digestible and easier," says Dani Pascarella, CFP® professional and the founder of OneEleven Financial Wellness .

50% off for new customers

\$3.99 monthly subscription or \$47.88 annual subscription

• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Connect all your bank accounts, investments accounts, and credit cards
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Help you save for individual savings goals
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Create a budget
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Track expenses
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. 30-day money-back guarantee
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Must buy a subscription (no free option)

Quicken Simplifi is a great budgeting tool if you want to create a detailed monthly spending and savings plan and don't mind paying for a subscription. If you would rather get a budgeting app that doesn't have a subscription fee, you'll have to consider other options.

• Up to 50% off on Simplifi for all new customers
• Stay on top of your finances in under 5 minutes per week.
• Check your custom budgeting plan — anytime, anywhere!
• See where your money is going and discover places to save.
• Keep your bills in check
• Find subscriptions you don't use and start saving from day one.

A newer plan among these guidelines is the 70-20-10 budget, which can act as a foundation for a more detailed budget down the line. Here's everything you need to know to determine if this plan is the right fit for you.

Like other budgeting guidelines such as the 50-30-20 rule , the 70-20-10 budget offers a loose budgeting plan that simplifies what can be a complicated process. The 70-20-10 budget guideline divides your post-tax income into three categories: monthly spending, saving, and debt repayment and donating.

## Use 70% of your income on wants and needs

Unlike most budgets, which separate your cost of living and discretionary spending into two different categories, the 70-20-10 budget condenses both into one category. Because there is no line separating your needs from your wants, it might be helpful to figure out what percent of your spending is fixed, such as rent or utilities, and work out what percent of your spending money is still available.

## Set aside 20% for savings and investments

The 70-20-10 budget has you putting 20% of your income away into investments or savings. You can put your income towards an emergency fund if you don't already have one, or take advantage of compound interest through a high-yield checking account .

Not only does this guarantee you'll have money when you need it, but you'll have more income overall. This budget can be a great tool for figuring out how much you should save each month .

Keep in mind that you may already be saving pre-tax income in retirement vehicles such as a 401(k) match , in which case you may not need to save as much of the income that reaches your bank account.

## Dedicate the remaining 10% for debt repayment or donations

The final 10% of your budget goes toward paying down debt or donating money. When it comes to debt, this category is for debt that isn't immediately due, like making extra payments on student loans or medical debt. On the other hand, minimum payments usually fall within your monthly expenses, like credit card debt payments or car loan payments.

The donation aspect of the 70-20-10 budgeting rule is what makes this guideline unique, as most budgeting guidelines don't have donations explicitly included in the budget. This encompasses donations to charities or causes that you believe in or donations to houses of worship or alma maters. This can also mean supporting your parents through their retirement. A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that 14% of adults living in someone else's house are a parent of the household head.

Pascarella says that the 70-20-10 budget is primarily for people who are just starting to budget because of its simplicity. This is especially important when the only way to learn how to budget is by actively seeking it out.

"Most schools don't teach personal finance. So most people are in the situation where they feel like everyone around [them] knows this stuff, and [they] feel very, very silly," Pascarella says. Ideally, you should develop a more sophisticated budget plan as you move forward, but "making these simple rules makes it really easy for people to get it when they're starting out and feel like they have something to do so it's a good starting point," she adds.

The 70-20-10 budget, with its designated allowance for donations, is also appealing for the socially conscious. However, Pascarella advises that you should be financially stable before giving to others. "Once you feel secure, that's when it's time to say 'okay, now how can I give back and help others?' But if your cup isn't full, it's very hard to give to the others around you," she says.

Like most budgeting guidelines, the 70-20-10 budgeting rule comes with its fair share of pitfalls.

It's difficult to pull off: Though saving is important in any budget, Pascarella says that setting 30% of your income aside is very aggressive, especially for people who are only starting to budget their money. Oftentimes, people will work their way toward this budget as something more aspirational than a hard-and-fast rule. "Just know that Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was the perfect budget and savings plan," Pascarella says.

It doesn't separate work and play: As stated earlier, there's no line that divides your wants from your needs. Though this simplifies your budget, Pascarella says there's value in being able to see the percent of your income that you get to have fun with. "I think separating them out is great, because when our clients see that choice spending in that percentage, it makes you look at your budget from a place of 'wow, I worked really hard. And now I have all of these dollars to like, go do some fun things with,'" she says.

It lacks nuance: There are nuances to finances that simplified budgets like the 70-20-10 budget just aren't able to capture. Specifically, there are often debt priorities that need to be taken into account, and 10% of your income won't be enough to cover everything. For example, some people have debts with higher interest rates than others. So limiting your repayments to 10% of your income makes less sense when the unpaid debt adds onto itself with each month.

The 70-20-10 budget can be helpful as an early budgeting guideline, and it should be treated as such. If followed like law, it can become counterproductive and can turn people away from budgeting altogether.

"Every dollar you earn should get you closer to the person you want to be," Pascarella says. "And if you don't truly feel that way, then like you still have work to do with your budget."

• Retail investing
• The stock market
• Debt management
• Credit scores
• Credit bureaus
• Identity theft and protection

• Getting Results.

## Year-round school begins for students in 2 Central Florida schools

Challenger 7, wyomina elementary schools start pilot program.

Mark Lehman , Reporter

BREVARD COUNTY, Fla. – School is back in session Monday morning for hundreds of students.

Children at Challenger 7 Elementary School in Brevard County will become the first in the district to start a year-round schedule, along with Wyomina Park Elementary School in Marion County.

This is part of a pilot program in Florida, with the hope to limit learning loss that happens during an extended summer break.

“We’re really excited that we’re going to have more wrap-around education,” said Victoria Hunt, principal of Wyomina Park Elementary.

The school is much busier than every other campus in the district because it is testing the year-round classes pilot program.

“By bringing them back a little earlier, we don’t have that type of learning loss,” she said.

The loss is called the “summer slide” and the goal of this new schedule is to keep learning fresh in students’ minds by shortening the extended break.

Students have 180 days of classes, the same as every other school, but instead of four quarters they are switching to a tri-semester schedule that’s spread out over the year.

“We still have the same amount of days they just break it up into small breaks.”

While there’s a shorter summer, students still have 12 weeks of vacation spread throughout the year.

Mark lehman.

Mark Lehman became a News 6 reporter in July 2014, but he's been a Central Florida journalist and part of the News 6 team for much longer. While most people are fast asleep in their bed, Mark starts his day overnight by searching for news on the streets of Central Florida.

## RELATED STORIES

'year-round' school starts monday at brevard elementary school.

Recommended Videos

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff

## Seven graduate students honored with Doctoral Dissertation Fellowships

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (7/18/2024) – Seven graduate students advised by Department of Chemistry faculty members were recently awarded the University of Minnesota’s Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship. The seven students honored by this prestigious award are Kaylee Barr, Brylon Denman, Madeline Honig, Chris Seong, Sneha Venkatachalapathy, Murphi Williams, and Caini Zheng.

Kaylee Barr , a Chemical Engineering and Materials Science PhD student, is entering her fifth year in the Reineke Group . Before making the move to Minnesota, she received her BS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Kansas. “I came to the University of Minnesota because of the department's developments in polymer science, and because I was interested in the intersection of polymer science and drug delivery in Theresa Reineke's lab,” she says. Here at UMN, Kaylee studies how bottlebrush polymer architecture affects pH-responsive oral drug delivery. This summer, she is excited to grow professionally and as a scientist in an intern position at Genentech.

Brylon Denman is a Chemistry PhD candidate in the Roberts Group . She joined the UMN community in 2020 after completing her BS in Biochemistry at St. Louis University. “My research in the Roberts group seeks to resolve regioselectivity and reactivity issues within aryne methodology via ligand control,” Brylon says. “To accomplish this task, I have taken a mechanistic and hypothesis driven approach to understand how key molecular parameters modify regioselectivity and reactivity. I hope to use the knowledge I have gained from these studies to both improve the synthetic utility of aryne intermediates, and improve the sustainability of aryne reactions.” Brylon is also passionate about sustainable and green chemistry. As a founding member of the Sustainable and Green Chemistry committee, Brylon strives to collaborate with other department teammates to strengthen the culture of green and sustainable chemistry through integration into teaching, research, and community engagement. “In my career I aim to continue this advocacy and use my breadth of knowledge to enact sustainable change at a major pharmaceutical company as emphasizing sustainability on such a large scale can lead to a large impact,” she says. As she works through her internship at AbbVie this summer, Brylon is looking towards the future to outline her next steps after graduation.

Chris Seong , an international student from New Zealand and PhD candidate in the Roberts Group, came to UMN after completing his BA with Distinction in Chemistry at St. Olaf College in 2020. Chris’ overarching chemistry interests involve the development of methods to utilize naturally abundant carboxylic acids as feedstock to synthesize medicinally relevant products, which are traditionally made with non-renewable starting materials derived from fossil fuels. “My earlier work has been focused on making alkyl-alkyl bonds through decarboxylation, but lately, in true Roberts Group fashion, I have turned my attention to using a similar mechanism to do aryne chemistry,” Chris says. He is currently working to publish a paper on the aryne project that he has been working on with two talented group mates; Sal Kargbo and Felicia Yu. “I am really excited to share this cool chemistry with the world,” he says. Outside of the lab, Chris is working on expanding his network to apply for jobs in the pharmaceutical industry – specifically in the early process space.

Sneha Venkatachalapathy is a member of the Distefano Group and an international student from India. She completed her BS in Chemistry with a minor degree in Biotechnology from Shiv Nadar University, Greater Noida, India in 2020. “Chemistry has always been my passion since high school. I still remember my first successful brown ring test that has left a remarkable fascination and interest towards chemistry,” Sneha says. “This early fascination has driven my academic journey, guided by mentors like Dr. Subhabrata Sen, who encouraged me to pursue a PhD in the United States.” Sneha was drawn towards working in the Chemical Biology research field where she could directly contribute to developing human life. “Joining Dr. Mark Distefano’s lab at UMN provided me with the chance to collaborate with Dr. Mohammad Rashidian from Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Together, we work towards expanding the scope of protein prenylation to construct protein-based cancer diagnostic tools,” she says. Sneha’s goal for her time in the UMN PhD program is to create innovative protein-based tools for cancer detection and treatment, aiming to enhance patient’s quality of life. She says she is looking forward to continuing to develop her leadership skills as she continues her doctorate, and is also exploring future opportunities beyond UMN. “One thing that motivates me daily is the belief that my research contributions to the scientific community would enhance our understanding of cancer diagnostic methods, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes worldwide,” she says.

Murphi Williams  completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, then joined the Bhagi-Damodaran at UMN in 2020. When it comes to research, Murphi is interested in chemical biology, more specifically, looking into proteins involved in important biological problems. “One of my major projects is developing and characterizing a potential inhibitor for  Mycobacterium tuberculosis , the bacteria that causes tuberculosis,” Murphi says. “Tuberculosis is the leading infectious disease so my projects center on understanding and inhibiting heme proteins important for the bacteria. Specifically, a previous lab member identified a small molecule that I've been characterizing the activity of in cells.” Her current research goal is to express and purify the protein targets for her small molecule inhibitor in the lab to further demonstrate the in vitro activity. She is also contemplating a future career in science communication. Outside of the lab, she enjoys working on her garden.

Caini Zheng joined the Chemistry at the UMN in 2019 after finishing her undergraduate studies at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. She is currently a sixth-year graduate student co-advised by Profs. Tim Lodge and Ilja Siepmann . Her research focuses on the phase behavior of soft materials, including polymers and oligomers. Her DDF statement is titled "Self-Assembly of Polymers and Amphiphiles into Bicontinuous Phases". Caini is currently working on a project to elucidate the self-assembly of glycolipids through molecular dynamics simulations coupled with machine learning methods. In the future, she wants to work in the industry on bridging data science with traditional material research.

## Related news releases

• Joint Safety Team featured in ACS Chemical Health & Safety
• Distinguished University Teaching Professor Philippe Bühlmann receives President's Award for Outstanding Service
• Twelve students recognized at 23rd annual GSRS
• Professor Emerita Jane Wissinger awarded 2024 Career Achievement in Green Chemistry Education
• Chemistry Diversity and Inclusion Committee debuts DEI Self-Study program
• Future transfer students
• Future international students
• Diversity and Inclusion Opportunities
• Living Learning Communities
• Mentor programs
• Programs for women
• Student groups
• Visit, Apply & Next Steps
• Information for current students
• Departments and majors overview
• Departments
• Integrated Degree Programs
• Online learning
• Appointments and drop-ins
• Commencement
• Four-year plans
• Policies, procedures, and forms
• Career Services overview
• Resumes and cover letters
• Jobs and internships
• Interviews and job offers
• CSE Career Fair
• Major and career exploration
• Collegiate Life overview
• Scholarships
• Diversity & Inclusivity Alliance
• Anderson Student Innovation Labs
• Information for alumni
• Get engaged with CSE
• Upcoming events
• CSE Alumni Society Board
• Alumni volunteer interest form
• Golden Medallion Society Reunion
• 50-Year Reunion
• Alumni honors and awards
• Outstanding Achievement
• Alumni Service
• Honorary Doctorate Degrees
• Nobel Laureates
• Alumni resources
• Alumni career resources
• Alumni news outlets
• CSE branded clothing
• International alumni resources
• Inventing Tomorrow magazine
• CSE giving overview
• Why give to CSE?
• College priorities
• Give online now
• External relations
• Giving priorities
• CSE Dean's Club
• Donor stories
• Impact of giving
• Ways to give to CSE
• CSE directories
• Invest in your company and the future
• Recruit our students
• Connect with researchers
• K-12 initiatives
• Diversity initiatives
• Research news
• Give to CSE
• CSE priorities
• Corporate relations
• Information for faculty and staff
• Office of the Dean
• Finance and Operations
• Communications
• Human resources
• Undergraduate programs and student services
• CSE Committees
• CSE policies overview
• Faculty hiring and tenure policies
• Finance policies and information
• Human resources policies
• Research policies
• Research overview
• Research centers and facilities
• Research proposal submission process
• Research safety
• Award-winning CSE faculty
• University awards
• Honorary professorships
• Collegiate awards
• Other CSE honors and awards
• Staff awards
• Performance Management Process
• Work. With Flexibility in CSE
• K-12 outreach overview
• Summer camps
• Outreach events
• Enrichment programs
• Field trips and tours
• CSE K-12 Virtual Classroom Resources
• Educator development

## More From Forbes

A psychologist explains why couples ‘gray divorce’ after years of marriage.

New research reveals how the seeds of a “gray divorce” may be planted early on in a marriage.

A “gray divorce” refers to the phenomenon of older adults, typically aged 50 and above, ending their marriages. Many wonder why a couple that has stayed together for so long would only realize much later in life that they aren’t right for each other.

However, it is essential to remember that people can learn what’s right or wrong for them at any point in their lives and that, sometimes, it takes years to act on such a life-changing realization.

So, what finally leads to their breaking point after years together? A recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships explored the experiences of 44 divorcees—60 years and older—and found that there is usually a two-phase process behind the timing of late-life divorces.

Here are two reasons why long-term marriages end in gray divorce, according to the study.

## 1. Staying Together While Growing Apart

Researchers found that the first phase leading up to a gray divorce often involves long-term dissatisfaction in the marriage, with couples staying together nonetheless.

Ex-spouses reported growing apart due to instances of infidelity , verbal abuse and being controlled by the other person, realizing their incompatibility due to differences of character and a lack of communication or going through personal development, which created distance between them when their partner did not want to pursue the same path.

## Here’s How Kamala Harris Performs In Polls Against Trump—As Biden Drops Out And Endorses Harris

‘are you ready’—elon musk fans wild rumors donald trump will create a u.s. bitcoin strategic reserve and trigger crypto price chaos, eminem stops taylor swift from making history.

This dissatisfaction motivated them to seek a divorce, but they often stayed together longer for their children and due to being financially dependent on their spouse, adhering to the social norms of their time and avoiding the stigma associated with divorce.

For instance, one couple from the study, Dan aged 69 and Rachel aged 68, explain their differing perspectives on the end of their marriage after 32 years together.

“He studied with twenty-five-year-old girls, and suddenly he got a motorcycle driver’s license, and suddenly he wouldn’t come home. From the experience of the long-standing betrayal and the experience of the lies that have also been told throughout all these years, it has been 10 years. I really wanted to get a divorce, a long, long time ago, but the argument was not to break up the family because there was the daughter who was at home,” says Rachel.

In contrast, Dan says, “I went to study and an amazing world opened for me that very, very much I wanted my ex-wife to be my partner in. At first, she complied, and it was a lot of fun. At some point she either got fed up or it didn’t interest her. We no longer had the usual topics of conversation. The divorce was essentially a final stop in a process that had started years before. And with all the suspicion that I have someone, what she is caught up on is my infidelity. That it started there. But it didn’t start from there.”

Another participant, Ruth, aged 68 and previously married for 44 years, describes how personality differences and flawed communication styles strained her marriage but socio-cultural circumstances delayed the divorce:

“I am a very warm person, very emotional, very hugging, very loving, and my partner was very cold, very intelligent. We were dragged into endless arguments about who is right, what word was said, in what tone it was said and what punishment is due for it. It was exhausting,” says Ruth.

“For many years I wanted a divorce, and I was probably not strong enough to do it. In the early years I was so immature, think about it, the 1970s, what it meant to get divorced. We didn’t have examples of those who did it. It took me a while to even believe that I was in a situation which actually isn’t good,” Ruth adds.

## 2. Realizing That The Marriage Must End

Researchers suggest that the second phase of marriage culminating in a gray divorce is when the decision is finalized after years of escalating marital distress, due to significant turning points where the marriage goes completely downhill.

These “points of no return” include specific events such as a public event that puts the couple’s strained relationship on display, amplified instances of marital or financial dishonesty or extreme instances of physical, economic or emotional abuse. This often leads to a moment of clarity and decisiveness about getting divorced.

Additionally, participants explain how they were in a better position to get divorced due to changes in the family structure such as finally having an “ empty nest ,” changing sociocultural norms as time passed, gaining emotional maturity and a strong desire to enjoy the remainder of their lives.

“Ex-dyad David aged 70 and Miriam aged 69 are divorced after 40 years of marriage, following ongoing infidelities and David’s disrespectful behavior since the beginning of the marriage. The point of no return was David’s 60th birthday party, to which several of the husband’s romantic partners were invited. Miriam gave David an ultimatum about inviting these women to the event, which was ignored. This was the moment she decided to divorce. Public exposure of a poor marital relationship forces us to face the marital reality and promotes realization that change is necessary,” the researchers write.

Another ex-couple, Sarah aged 62 and Jacob aged 66, were married for 35 years but divorced when Jacob had felt deeply unappreciated and disrespected by her and Sarah had suddenly learned about his infidelity. For Sarah, his refusal to admit his infidelity or seek couple’s counseling impacted her decision more than the act itself. Jacob had a different breaking point:

“On holiday eve I bought presents for everyone and gave them to my wife and children. She tells me “I didn’t buy you anything, go downtown tomorrow and buy something for yourself.” It was so representative - get along - I’m not supposed to do anything about it. It’s peanuts, yeah? I made some sort of decision that the 20–25 years I have left to live, I want to live them as I see fit. And that led me to leave home,” Jacob explains.

These vulnerable stories are a reminder to detect the signs of marital strain early and address them promptly. Gray divorce is often rooted in deep-seated issues, significant turning points and personal evolutions that span many years. It involves navigating complex emotions, societal expectations and the practicalities of starting anew.

Yet, these individuals show remarkable resilience and a determination to seek happiness in their remaining years, proving that it’s never too late to reevaluate one’s path and make changes that align with their personal growth and well-being. An authentic and fulfilling life is always worth pursuing, regardless of your age.

Are you feeling lonely in your marriage? Take this test to receive a science-backed answer: Loneliness in Intimate Relationships Scale

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

## Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

## Horrible marking in Master's dissertation (55%) // Good Feedback?

Related discussions.

• Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%
• Disappointed MA Education dissertation result
• Submitting dissertation without feedback
• What to expect as an older masters student?
• Appeal for masters dissertation marking
• capped mark of zero
• Question regarding special circumstances and degree classification
• Failed my dissertation component
• How do people get 90%+ for their BA/BSc dissertations?
• Is Wrexham Glyndwr's online MSc in Computer Science a scam?
• Will my dissertation grade stop me from getting onto a masters
• Aberystwyth University - Equine Science and any words of advice for MSc?
• Masters dissertation: failed my resubmission
• As a prospective Master's student, should I do a dissertation in undergrad?
• LSE conditional offer - Submitting Documents
• How long did your dissertation take you to do?
• Newcastle University Masters Opinion
• 1 mark off pass masters dissertation
• Does MSc Grade Matter for Employment?

Posted 6 days ago

Posted 1 week ago

Posted 2 weeks ago

Posted 1 month ago

Posted 3 months ago

Posted 4 months ago

## Articles for you

Seven things you’ll learn at university (that have nothing to do with your degree)

Top 10 tips for Ucas Clearing 2024

Bringing business people into the classroom: what students learn from industry professionals

1. PDF Marking Criteria Optional Dissertation (Mml Part Ii) & Dissertation

rencing.75-79: Shows unquestioned mastery of the topic and co. sition.70-74: Consistently well-crafted, independent and enterprising.60-69II.1GOODA good, sound argument containing. ompetent discussion of the topic while demonstrating good overall knowledge of the field. The dissertation should show signs of clarity and organization with appr.

Fail - Below 39%: A piece in this grade band will display most, if not all, of the following characteristics: irrelevant content, vagueness, error, general lack of understanding. limited knowledge of the subject. significant factual errors. little understanding or actual misunderstanding of the issues and debates.

3. PDF Dissertation Marking Criteria Level 7

the mark awarded for Analysis would be 27% of the total mark for the work. Dissertation Marking Criteria - Level 7 N.B. These marking criteria are based on the QAA Framework for higher education qualification in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (2008) Structure & organisation Knowledge Application of knowledge & understanding (incl.

4. PDF Dissertation Assessment and Grading

70-84 First Class ... This mark is usually reserved for cases where there is no serious attempt to complete the dissertation (as defined in College Regulations). It may also be used for exam offences such as unsanctioned late submission or plagiarism, in line with departmental and College procedures. ...

5. another awkward question on 'distinction'

Hi Leaf, For my masters, in order to get a distinction, your overall mark in your dissertation had to be at least 70%, and your average mark from your taught modules (exams and assignments etc) had to be 70% at least. They didn't work out an average of the two. If your taught module part was 69% but your disseration was way over 70% you'd still ...

6. Section 7: Classification

A mark greater than or equal to 70% in the Dissertation. or A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 68.50% and Module marks of at least 70.00% in at least 50% of the taught credits and A mark greater than or equal to 70.00% in the Dissertation. Qualifies for Merit: A Final Weighted Mark greater than or equal to 59.50% and

7. MSc Project Marking Guidelines

70-79: The dissertation is good or excellent on each of the basic and additional criteria. ... 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 ...

8. Criteria for Marking of MPhil

Criteria for Marking of MPhil Essays and Dissertations The word limit for both essays and dissertation should be strictly applied and examiners may decline to read any material in excess of it. ... (½ x 12,000 word Easter Term dissertation mark), rounded upwards in case of half marks. ... 70-74 High Pass ...

9. Dissertation

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.

10. Marking Scheme

Below is the marking scheme used by your assessors when deciding what mark to award your dissertation. This is an important source of guidance for the writing of your report. ... Aspect of Dissertation. Marks Awarded. Macro-Structure---Clear and informative title. 1. Divided into appropriate sections (Intro, Method, etc.) 2. Headings and sub ...

11. Disappointed: Dissertation mark?

I got (70%, 70%, 68%, and 65%) in the four taught courses. I really wrote a very wonderful dissertation. Three weeks ago, I received the feedbacks from two reviewers, the two feedbacks were very, very positive. Therefore, I was expecting to get 70% in the dissertation. Unfortunately, two days ago, I received the mark and it was only 62% ...

12. Dissertation Structure & Layout 101 (+ Examples)

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 ...

Academic performance was measured by the mark given to students' final-year dissertation project (on a 0-100% scale, where 40% is a pass & a mark of 70% and above is a 1st class grade). Students worked on their project over a six month period, under the supervision of a member of the teaching staff. Dissertation reports were

14. Dissertation Mark of above 70 : r/UniversityOfWarwick

Probably 500-700hrs per person for the 60 page report. Probably completely different for MSc. 1. Reply. Phocasola. • 3 yr. ago. yeah, does sound quite different, but still good to know that a mark above 70 is possible. and also congrats on your mark! 1. Reply.

15. Dissertation mark : r/UniUK

Dissertation mark My supervisor for my dissertation told me that she was going to mark my dissertation over 70% and my work was a outstanding piece of academic work and was a first grade mark. However i just got my results back and she has graded it at a 2:1.

16. Just got my dissertation grade back and I am gutted

Icanonlytry, When I marked dissertations I was required to give extensive feedback in writing and to explain the mark in some detail, including 'where you could have gained extra marks'. This was written in a constructive way. I was also aware that the marks and comments would be reviewed by the university's external examiner, and/or could be 2nd marked or appealed, so couldn't just be the ...

17. MSc Supervision

Hi all - just to ask have recently finished my MSc dissertation. Throughout the course consistently got grades above 70%. Throughout the past year I have worked alongside my supervisor via Teams on my dissertation - she has been hard to track down, but consistently ahs told me I am on track, work looks good, suggesting re edits (which I have done) and told me that I was looking at a good mark ...

18. The Vineyard Gazette

Mark Francis Lucier, 70. ... Mark Francis Lucier died on July 15 in Edgartown. Mark was born on April 4, 1954 in Springfield, and was known for his straightforward nature. He was a master craftsman, a respected boss, a fabulous golfer and an adored grandfather, affectionately dubbed the "grand poo bah." ...

19. What Is the 70-20-10 Budgeting Rule?

The 70-20-10 rule is a budgeting technique that breaks your after-tax income into three categories: monthly bills, savings, and debt repayment. Start saving today.

20. Year-round school begins for students in 2 Central Florida schools

Say goodbye to dead batteries when you have this \$70 battery jump starter and power bank . ... Mark starts his day overnight by searching for news on the streets of Central Florida. email.

21. 90% for a dissertation...how common is that?

The highest in my class was high 70's. I got 75 which was the second highest. Apart from me and one other, everyone else scored in the 60s. My uni marks dissertations extremely tough... They consider 80% to be the level you expect from a professional with infinite knowledge in their field. Above 80 is pretty much impossible.

22. Seven graduate students honored with Doctoral Dissertation Fellowships

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (7/18/2024) - Seven graduate students advised by Department of Chemistry faculty members were recently awarded the University of Minnesota's Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship. The seven students honored by this prestigious award are Kaylee Barr, Brylon Denman, Madeline Honig, Chris Seong, Sneha Venkatachalapathy, Murphi Williams, and Caini Zheng.