Assessment criteria and essay marking

I. How I mark tutorial essays

Like many tutors, I am reluctant to give tutorial essays a numerical mark. This is because a tutorial essay is not to be understood or assessed as its author's final verdict on the essay question. Giving your tutorial essay a numerical mark, like an exam essay, may encourage thinking about it as the final step in your study of its topic.

Thinking in this way, you might plan not to answer on that topic if your essay got a low mark, or you might plan to answer on that topic if your essay got a high mark. But this is not the right way to think about the tutorial essay. On the contrary, you should think of it as merely your first articulation of an answer to the essay question, one that you should expect to be mistaken or underdeveloped or uninformed in various significant ways, and which you should plan to improve on after the tutorial.

It is enormously important to write tutorial essays because attempting to set out determinate reasons and conclusions is an almost universally necessary part of thinking about a question. If you don’t do this, you will not know if you have understood it. You should not trust your sense that you have understood something, or that you have not understood something. Only by seeing whether you can articulate that understanding clearly can you tell whether you really have understood it, and see where your thought needs development. To see this, try explaining any reasonably complex philosophical lecture or talk that you feel like you’ve understood to someone who hasn’t heard it.

I also worry that (especially in the case of essays in the early weeks of the term) students may allow themselves to reach premature conclusions about their own aptitude for the area of philosophy in question, or even for philosophy in general, based on tutorial essay marks. Paying closer attention to the marks than the written comments, you may decide that you are no good at philosophy, or supremely talented at philosophy, and fail to appreciate that how good you are is in large part a function of how much practice you get and how much you apply yourself to improving your understanding.

So long as they’re understood in the right way, however, marks can help to give you a sense of how you are progressing. So I do give tutorial essays marks; but only from the fifth week of term onwards. Before that, I give only written feedback.
 

II. What your tutorial essay mark means

When I do give a numerical mark for your tutorial essay, the mark I give represents my estimate of how you would do in the relevant examination paper on the strength of the evidence that the tutorial essay provides, adjusting for the many differences—in preparation, length, expected level of knowledge, etc.—between exam and tutorial essays.

So, for example, since tutorial essays are expected to be longer than exam essays, a short tutorial essay will receive a lower mark than a Finals essay of the same length, all other things equal. On the other hand, since by the time you take your exams you will have been able to revisit and develop your thinking about the topic in question further, a tutorial essay may not be marked down as much as an exam essay for poor judgment about appropriate focus or poor appreciation of the lie of the philosophical land.
 

III. Assessment criteria

For Moral Philosophy, essays are assessed on the basis of the following criteria (notwithstanding the adjustments described above), which are also used by assessors of your Prelims scripts.

Distinction
80–100	Answer displays rigorous and independent thinking, a keen critical understanding of relevant material, transparent organisation and presentation, clear and precise expression, and effective use of examples.
70–79	Answer demonstrates critical understanding of relevant material, transparent organisation and presentation, clear and precise expression, and effective use of examples.
Pass
65–69	Answer offers generally effective analysis and argumentation, a good grasp of relevant material, transparent organisation and presentation of material, and general clarity of expression. There is some infelicity in argumentation, or the analysis is slightly lacking in depth or focus, or there are minor shortcomings in choice, organisation or presentation of material.
60–64	Answer offers well-structured and generally satisfactory discussion, and a mostly correct analysis of the central arguments and themes. There are some lapses in argumentation; the writing is somewhat pedestrian, unclear, or imprecise; or there are deficiencies in choice or organisation of material.
50–59	A structured answer, offering analysis of some key aspects of the question; there is evidence of a good basic knowledge of relevant material. But the answer is incomplete, or there are significant lapses in argumentation or structure, or there is poor presentation, or significant gaps in knowledge of relevant material, or there some degree of irrelevance.
40–49	The answer provides some evidence of knowledge of material relevant to question and of analytical or argumentative ability. But it is very limited: the argumentation is muddled, or there is a significant degree of irrelevance, or seriously flawed presentation.

For Finals papers, essays are assessed on the basis of the following criteria (notwithstanding the adjustments described above), which are also used by assessors of your Finals scripts.

First class
84–100	Exceptional answer displaying originality, outstanding analytical and argumentative skills, superior command of the facts and arguments relevant to the question, excellent organisation, and lucid and precise expression.
76–83	Excellent answer offering high-level analysis, independent and rigorous argument, skilled handling of the facts and arguments relevant to the question, transparent organisation, and lucid and precise expression.
70–75	Strong answer displaying a high standard of analysis and argument, a thorough command of the facts and/or arguments relevant to the question, transparent organisation, and clear language.
Upper second (2.i)
65–69	Answer provides effective analysis and argumentation, thorough command of evidence, clarity of expression, and transparent organisation of material. There is occasional imprecision in argumentation or expression, or lack of depth, or there are minor omissions, or lapses in focus.
60–64	Answer is well-structured and offers a generally accurate analysis of central arguments and themes, and a well-reasoned conclusion. There are occasional lapses in argumentation; the writing may be somewhat pedestrian or unclear or imprecise, and there are some omissions or infelicity in organisation of material.
Lower second (2.ii)
55–59	Answer offers adequate, if somewhat basic, analysis and understanding of key concepts and arguments. It is, however, significantly lacking in scope, depth or precision; it offers pat or pedestrian representation of thoughts and arguments; there are important inaccuracies or omissions; and there are some lapses in argumentation.
50–54	Answer shows a basic grasp of relevant material and arguments, and represents a fair attempt to arrive at a reasoned conclusion. But there are serious inaccuracies or omissions, significant lapses in argumentation (e.g. nonsequiturs, misuse of concepts or evidence), or there is failure to digest material, or minor irrelevance.
Third class
45–49	Essay offers a limited answer to the question and constructs a rudimentary argument; it provides some evidence of relevant study. But treatment of the topic is superficial or incomplete, and there are gaps or mistakes in understanding of key concepts and arguments; the focus and organisation are poor, or there is some irrelevance.
40–44	Essay provides significant elements of a basic and relevant answer. But the argumentation is muddled, or the essay offers only a very superficial discussion with poor focus, significant misunderstanding of key concepts and arguments, or considerable irrelevance; or the answer is seriously incomplete.