The presentation of the dissertation (out of 30) Does the introduction set out the aims of the project? Is the prior art made clear, with appropriate references? Is it clear how the present work fits into the bigger scheme? Is the material organized in an appropriate order that makes the development of the ideas and experiments easy to follow? Does the writing convey a sense that the student understands the work? Are appropriate conclusions drawn? Are there appropriate suggestions for future work? How is the overall ‘look’ of the dissertation? Has it been well prepared? Are the diagrams and figures of an appropriate standard and used to good effect? Is the written English clear, grammatical and of a good standard? Spelling and punctuation? Are chapters, sections and paragraphs used appropriately? Where applicable assessors should consider whether or not the “experimental section” (including the characterization of compounds) is up to the standard expected for this kind of work. If this section is below standard, then a comment should be included to this effect and a stated mark penalty applied. Comment Descriptive phrases mark mark awarded Please make specific comments (both positive and negative) which justify the mark A top-rate piece of scientific writing, up to the standard of a good first-year report Very well written: a clear grasp of the work and its context is evident; the presentation is very good A typical Part III project: some room for improvement, but no major flaws An acceptable project which could clearly have been improved without major effort Significant deficiencies in style, presentation and content 25 23 20 17 15 Please comment on why mark was moderated Moderated mark (if any) Name of first assessor Signature of first assessor Date Student’s name College Supervisor Marks allocated by the second assessor (Examiner)
The presentation of the dissertation (out of 30) Does the introduction set out the aims of the project? Is the prior art made clear, with appropriate references? Is it clear how the present work fits into the bigger scheme? Is the material organized in an appropriate order that makes the development of the ideas and experiments easy to follow? Does the writing convey a sense that the student understands the work? Are appropriate conclusions drawn? Are there appropriate suggestions for future work? How is the overall ‘look’ of the dissertation? Has it been well prepared? Are the diagrams and figures of an appropriate standard and used to good effect? Is the written English clear, grammatical and of a good standard? Spelling and punctuation? Are chapters, sections and paragraphs used appropriately? Where applicable assessors should consider whether or not the “experimental section” (including the characterization of compounds) is up to the standard expected for this kind of work. If this section is below standard, then a comment should be included to this effect and the mark lowered appropriately. Comment Descriptive phrases mark mark awarded Please make specific comments (both positive and negative) which justify the mark A top-rate piece of scientific writing, up to the standard of a good first-year report Very well written: a clear grasp of the work and its context is evident; the presentation is very good A typical Part III project: some room for improvement, but no major flaws An acceptable project which could clearly have been improved without major effort Significant deficiencies in style, presentation and content 25 23 20 17 15 Please comment on why mark was moderated Moderated mark (if any) Name of second assessor Signature of second assessor Date Student’s name College Supervisor