marking scheme for dissertation

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.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• 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
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Current students
• Department of Computer Science and Technology

Sign in with Raven

• People overview
• Research staff
• PhD students
• Professional services staff
• Affiliated lecturers
• Overview of Professional Services Staff
• Seminars overview
• Weekly timetable
• Wednesday seminars
• Wednesday seminar recordings ➥
• Wheeler lectures
• Computer Laboratory 75th anniversary ➥
• women@CL 10th anniversary ➥
• Job vacancies ➥
• Library resources ➥
• How to get here
• William Gates Building layout
• Contact information
• Department calendar ➥
• Accelerate Programme for Scientific Discovery overview
• Data Trusts Initiative overview
• Pilot Funding FAQs
• Research Funding FAQs
• Cambridge Ring overview
• Ring Events
• Hall of Fame
• Hall of Fame Awards
• Hall of Fame - Nominations
• The Supporters' Club overview
• Industrial Collaboration
• Annual Recruitment Fair overview
• Graduate Opportunities
• Summer internships
• Technical Talks
• Supporter Events and Competitions
• How to join
• Collaborate with Us
• Cambridge Centre for Carbon Credits (4C)
• Equality and Diversity overview
• Athena SWAN
• E&D Committee
• Support and Development
• Targeted funding
• LGBTQ+@CL overview
• Links and resources
• Queer Library
• women@CL overview
• About Us overview
• Friends of women@CL overview
• Twentieth Anniversary of Women@CL
• Tech Events
• Students' experiences
• Contact overview
• Mailing lists
• Scholarships
• Initiatives
• Dignity Policy
• Outreach overview
• Women in Computer Science Programme
• Google DeepMind Research Ready programme overview
• Accommodation and Pay
• Application
• Eligibility
• Raspberry Pi Tutorials ➥
• Wiseman prize
• Research overview
• Application areas
• Research themes
• Algorithms and Complexity
• Computer Architecture overview
• Creating a new Computer Architecture Research Centre
• Graphics, Vision and Imaging Science
• Human-Centred Computing
• Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
• Mobile Systems, Robotics and Automation
• Natural Language Processing
• Programming Languages, Semantics and Verification
• Systems and Networking
• Research groups overview
• Computer Architecture Group overview
• Student projects
• Energy and Environment Group overview
• Declaration
• Publications
• EEG Research Group
• Past seminars
• Learning and Human Intelligence Group overview
• Quantum Computing Group
• Technical Reports
• Admissions information
• Undergraduate admissions overview
• Open days and events
• Undergraduate course overview overview
• Making your application
• Admissions FAQs
• Super curricular activities
• MPhil in Advanced Computer Science overview
• Applications
• Course structure
• Funding competitions
• Prerequisites
• PhD in Computer Science overview
• Application forms
• Research Proposal
• Funding competitions and grants
• Part-time PhD Degree
• Premium Research Studentship
• Current students overview
• Part IB overview
• Part IB group projects overview
• Important dates
• Design briefs
• Moodle course ➥
• Learning objectives and assessment
• Technical considerations
• After the project
• Part II overview
• Part II projects overview
• Project suggestions
• Project Checker groups
• Project proposal
• Advice on running the project
• Progress report and presentation
• The dissertation
• Supervisor briefing notes
• Project Checker briefing notes
• Past Part II projects archive ➥
• Part II Supervision sign-up
• Part II Modules
• Part II Supervisions overview
• Continuing to Part III overview
• Part III of the Computer Science Tripos
• Overview overview
• Information for current Masters students overview
• Special topics
• Part III and ACS projects overview
• Submission of project reports
• ACS projects overview
• Guidance for ACS projects
• Part III projects overview
• Guidance for Part III projects
• Preparation
• Registration
• Induction - Masters students
• PhD resources overview
• Deadlines for PhD applications
• Protocol for Graduate Advisers for PhD students
• Guidelines for PhD supervisors
• Induction information overview
• Important Dates
• Who is here to help
• Exemption from University Composition Fees
• Being a research student
• Researcher Development
• Research skills programme
• First Year Report: the PhD Proposal
• Second Year Report: Dissertation Schedule
• Third Year Report: Progress Statement
• Fourth Year: writing up and completion overview
• PhD thesis formatting
• Writing up and word count
• Submitting your dissertation
• Papers and conferences
• Leave to work away, holidays, and intermission
• List of PhD students ➥
• PAT, recycling, and Building Services
• Freshers overview
• Cambridge University Freshers' Events
• Undergraduate teaching information and important dates
• Course material 2023/24 ➥
• Course material 2024/25 ➥
• Exams overview
• Examination dates
• Examination results ➥
• Examiners' reports ➥
• Part III Assessment
• MPhil Assessment
• Past exam papers ➥
• Examinations Guidance 2023-24
• Marking Scheme and Classing Convention
• Guidance on Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct
• Purchase of calculators
• Examinations Data Retention Policy
• Guidance on deadlines and extensions
• Mark Check procedure and Examination Review
• Lecture timetables overview
• Understanding the concise timetable
• Supervisions overview
• Part II supervisions overview ➥
• Part II supervision sign-up ➥
• Supervising in Computer Science
• Supervisor support
• Directors of Studies list
• Academic exchanges
• Advice for visiting students taking Part IB CST
• Summer internship: Optimisation of DNN Accelerators using Bayesian Optimisation
• UROP internships
• Resources for students overview
• Student SSH server
• Online services
• Managed Cluster Service (MCS)
• Microsoft Software for personal use
• Installing Linux
• Part III and MPhil Machines
• Transferable skills
• Course feedback and where to find help overview
• Providing lecture feedback
• Fast feedback hotline
• Staff-Student Consultative Forum
• Breaking the silence ➥
• Student Administration Offices
• Intranet overview
• New starters and visitors
• Forms and templates
• Building management
• Health and safety
• Teaching information
• Research admin
• Miscellaneous
• Head of Department's Announcements
• Masters courses
• Lecture timetables
• Supervisions
• Exchanges and internships
• Resources for students
• Course feedback and where to find help

Marking Scheme and Classing Convention 2023-24.

This document is concerned with Part IA, Part IB, Part II and Part III Computer Science Tripos examinations, administered by the Department of Computer Science and Technology. 

Overview of the Examinations

The following table shows the components of the different Parts of the Computer Science Tripos (CST) and indicates the maximum mark available for each:

Each written paper and the Part II Project/Dissertation is marked out of 100. Each of the two Part II modules of assessment is marked out of 50. Part III modules of assessment are marked out of 100 and the Part III Project/Dissertation is equivalent to four modules. Details of the way credit is awarded for Assessed Exercises are given below.

Notes on Part IA

Every Part IA candidate offers Papers 1, 2 and 3 of the CST and the subject Mathematics of the Natural Sciences Tripos.

Every candidate is required to submit a number of assessed exercises. A satisfactorily completed exercise is awarded a tick. Details of the required ticks and all deadlines are specified each year by an announcement by the Head of Department.

There is an expectation that every student will pass all their ticks. The number and duration of ticks associated with a course is determined by the course lecturer(s) subject to oversight by the Tripos Management Committee. The guiding principle in deciding whether to use a tick should be whether it teaches a specific concept or reinforces important lecture material.

Mark penalties will be applied to act as a deterrent to missing a tick. The Part IA Examiners are supplied with a final tick list. Each missing tick will receive a penalty of 10 marks (10% of a paper). The maximum penalty is 100 marks (one full paper).

Notes on Part IB

Every Part IB candidate offers Papers 4 to 7 and is also required to submit a number of assessed exercises which are marked by the ‘Tick’ system, as for Part IA (above).

Marking Scheme for Parts IA, IB and II Written Papers

The 9 papers of the CST each contain between 8 and 14 questions and candidates are always asked to attempt 5 questions with 20 marks available per question.

Every question is based principally on material presented in a particular course of lectures and is normally set and marked by the lecturer who gave the relevant course.

Each question is heralded by the title of the most relevant course and the breakdown of the 20 available marks is clearly indicated. Each question is vetted by at least two internal examiners and, for Parts IB and II, the External Examiner. As a means of moderating the marking process, the External Examiner scrutinises a number of marked scripts selected at random.

Marking Scheme for Part IA and Part IB Assessed Exercises

Satisfactory solutions to the individual exercises are awarded ticks by those who are responsible for the associated practical classes. A submission has to pass a threshold of acceptability and the candidate may have to satisfy an assessor at a short interview (5 to 10 minutes). Unsatisfactory individual exercises which fail to obtain a tick may be resubmitted, subject to the specified deadlines.

Each Part IB candidate also takes part in a group project. Each member of each group must attend all the formal meetings and write a personal report. Each such report includes summary assessments of the contributions made by the other members of the group. The academic leaders of the group projects take these assessments into account when awarding ticks. No resubmission is possible for group projects.

Marking Scheme for Part II modules of assessment

Each Part II Module of Assessment will be assigned a mark out of a maximum possible 50 marks. During the year, provisional marks in the form of grades A-F will be determined on the basis of submitted coursework, practical exercises, written tests, and other elements as advertised in the announcement by the Head of Department, for the specific nature and content of that module. Provisional marks will be used as the basis for determining final scores, and these are out of 50 for each module.

Marking Scheme for Part II Dissertations

Every dissertation will have two initial marks. The first mark will come from unblinded marking by the marker* who will assess the dissertation with the help of the supervisor, such that the supervisor understands the reasoning for the mark proposed (and can later provide feedback to the student). The second mark will come from blinded marking by an internal examiner, who will not have access to any of the marker’s output prior to submitting their mark. The examiners will then reconcile the first and second marks to the final marks as they deem appropriate. If a significant mark change is chosen, the examiners will ensure that the marker is aware of the reasoning so that they can calibrate and update the supervisor.

*The marker is a senior member of the department associated with the project. The marker may also be the supervisor.

When all the dissertations have been read and marked, the raw marks are processed to produce a provisional mark. An order-of-merit table is drawn up and the examiners then discuss every dissertation in turn.

Candidates may be invited to a viva voce examination, at which additional expert assessors may participate. It is expected that in any year, around 5–10% of candidates will be examined by viva.

Classing Convention: Parts IA, IB and II

The scheme of weighting used to calculate the overall BA degree classification for CST is as follows:

• Part IA - Zero, but students are required to pass the course in order to progress to Part IB.
• Part IB - Zero, but students are required to pass the course in order to progress to Part II.
• Part II – 100%, and the grade achieved in Part II will be the final overall degree classification.

There are three principal stages in classing Parts I and II of the CST:

• For each candidate, determine an overall total mark.
• Order the candidates by their overall marks, thereby deriving an order-of-merit table.
• Partition the order-of-merit table into classes.

Further details are given in the following sections.

In every written paper in the CST, candidates are asked to attempt five questions where each question is marked out of 20.

There is no scaling of total marks, or for individual questions in any part of the CST. However, the examiners may scale marks for individual questions in exceptional circumstances.

For Part IA and Part IB penalties are applied for any missing assessed exercises.

The aggregate mark for each candidate is used to determine an order-of-merit table. After discounting students who fail to be classed, the class boundaries are initially assigned by the Examiners in order to achieve at Part IA a partition of 25/55/12.5/7.5, at Part IB a partition of 32.5/52.5/10/5, and at Part II a partition of 40/50/7.5/2.5, for First/Upper Second/Lower Second/Third respectively. The final class boundaries are arrived at by careful consideration of those candidates who fall close to borderlines. For Part IB and Part II, this procedure is overseen by the External Examiner. 

Examiners will use their judgement to decide which candidates shall be unclassed. In recent years this has been at a mark threshold of around 40%, which may be varied at the discretion of the Examiners, who will also take into account whether there is a significant gap in marks below the lowest classed candidate, or whether the candidate has otherwise not achieved a reasonable minimum standard for progression to the next part of the Tripos (for Part IA or Part IB) or to graduate with an Honours degree (for Part II). 

It is not the practice to scale the marks on individual questions. However, the Examiners reserve the right to apply such scaling if they see fit. The Examiners may additionally ask for questions to be remarked if they are not content with the mark distribution presented. In determining the final score for Part II modules of assessment, Examiners will take into account the need for fair comparison between different modules. 

In Part II distinctions will be awarded to any candidates who are placed in the top 10% of the classed candidates for both their dissertation and aggregate mark for the three written papers.

Classing Convention: Part III

Part III students obtain an overall percentage score for the year, with 60% being the passing grade, 67% being “pass with merit” and 75% corresponding to “pass with distinction”. The classification for Part III (the MEng degree) is obtained by the grade achieved at Part III only.

These scores are calculated by combining raw scores from individual modules with the score attained for the research project. Each of the five taught modules contributes 1/9th of the overall grade, while the project accounts for 4/9ths. In addition to attaining a passing grade overall, students are also expected to attain a passing grade for their research project.

In the process of Research Project selection, Part III students fix a Project Supervisor in conjunction with their Director of Studies. Because the Project Supervisor is an Assessor for the purposes of examining (i.e. provides a project mark), he or she must be a University Teaching Officer at the Department of Computer Science and Technology or otherwise approved by Head of Department.

The project dissertation is marked by one of the Part III Examiners or Senior Assessors, and by the Project Supervisor. Each assessor produces a percentage score, and these are averaged to provide a provisional mark. Should the individual scores be widely discrepant, a third assessor may be used. In addition, students may be called for a viva voce examination, which may lead to adjustment of the provisional mark.

Approved by Department of Computer Science and Technology Faculty Board (22/11/22), and published 23 November 2022

Updates approved by Department of Computer Science and Technology Faculty Board (17/01/23), and published 18 January 2023

Updates approved by Department of Computer Science and Technology Faculty Board (Feb 24), and published April 2024

Department of Computer Science and Technology University of Cambridge William Gates Building 15 JJ Thomson Avenue Cambridge CB3 0FD

About the department

Study here Research News Jobs How to get here About the department

Website privacy policy

Social media

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• What Occupational Physicians say
• Becoming a specialist
• Categories of membership
• Benefits of membership
• Subscriptions and fees
• Prizes and Fellowships
• Code of Conduct Policy
• Specialty Training
• OMST 2022 Curriculum
• Examinations
• Portfolio Pathway (CESR) entry to the Specialist Register
• Health for Health Professionals programme
• Introduction to Revalidation
• Preparing for Revalidation
• PReP: FOM’s Revalidation e-portfolio
• Clinical Governance
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
• CPD Event Approval
• Health at Work
• OEM Journal
• Publications
• FOM evidence-based Guidelines and consensus-based Guidance
• FOM Guidance – Mandatory Vaccination 2022
• FOM Updates

« Dissertations

• Dissertation guide
• Dissertation timetable
• Dissertation FAQs
• Dissertation resources
• Summary of roles and responsibilities

Dissertation Marking Scheme

Information

• Staff List and Contacts
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy and Security Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Web Sales Agreement

Quick Links

• Careers in occupational medicine
• Revalidation
• Healthy Working UK
• Other Links

2 Lovibond Lane London SE10 9FY

Telephone: 020 7242 8698 Email: -->[email protected]

Faculty of Occupational Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians Charity Commission No: 1139516 Scottish Charity No: SCO40060 Registered in England No: 07461063 VAT Reg No: 798 6604 62

© 2024 Faculty of Occupational Medicine Site by Phew

FOM office will be closed from the afternoon of 24th December until Wednesday 2nd January 2019.

We would like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year for 2019

School of Social and Political Science

Marking descriptors.

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

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

• SPS UG Coursework marking scheme
• SPS UG Dissertation marking scheme
• SPS UG Examination Marking Descriptor
• University Common Marking Scheme

A1 (90-100%)

An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair in tackling issues, yielding a product that is deemed to be of potentially publishable quality, in terms of scholarship and originality.

A2 (80-89%)

An authoritative answer that provides a fully effective response to the question. It should show a command of the literature and an ability to integrate that literature and go beyond it. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to the conclusion. Sources should be used accurately and concisely to inform the answer but not dominate it. There should be a sense of a critical and committed argument, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to question them. Presentation and the use of English should be commensurate with the quality of the content.

A3 (70-79%)

A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the literature and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions.

B B- (60-63%) B (64-66%) B+ (67-69%)

A very good answer that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question and the sources should be addressed directly and fully. The work of other authors should be presented critically. Effective use should be made of the whole range of the literature. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation. The answer should proceed coherently to a convincing conclusion. The quality of the writing and presentation (especially referencing) should be without major blemish. Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+; a more limited answer will be graded B-.

C C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%)

A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and firmly based in the reading. It may draw upon a restricted range of sources but should not just re-state one particular source. Other authors should be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. The materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-.

D D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%)

A passable answer which understands the question, displays some academic learning and refers to relevant literature. The answer should be intelligible and in general factually accurate, but may well have deficiencies such as restricted use of sources or academic argument, over-reliance on lecture notes, poor expression, and irrelevancies to the question asked. The general impression may be of a rather poor effort, with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the issue. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

An answer with evident weaknesses of understanding but conveying the sense that with a fuller argument or factual basis it might have achieved a pass. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps.

An answer showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and pedestrian use of inadequate sources.

An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with reading or academic concepts.

An answer without any academic merit which usually conveys little sense that the course has been followed or of the basic skills of essay-writing.

A dissertation that fulfils all of the criteria for an ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair and originality in tackling both methodological and substantive issues. These should be seen as yielding a product that is of potentially publishable quality in terms of scholarship, originality and contribution to the field.

An authoritative dissertation that displays a sophisticated grasp of issues raised in the literature and develops an appropriate design and methodology to address a clearly-articulated set of questions stemming from that literature. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to its own independent conclusions. It should also show an ability to be reflexive, pointing to lessons learned from the research and making suggestions where appropriate as to how future studies in the area might benefit from experience gained in the course of the investigation. Referencing, presentation and use of English should be of commensurately high quality.

A dissertation of high intellectual quality, which has clearly-stated aims, displays a good grasp of methodological issues and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. While presenting the data obtained from the research accurately, the discussion should move beyond a mainly descriptive account of the results, to develop its own comments, points and interpretations.

A very good dissertation that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The research question should be clearly stated and an appropriate methodology used to test or answer it, with effective use made of the literature. There should be no significant errors of either fact or interpretation. The presentation and use of the research data should be accurate and the discussion should show a willingness to speculate on their implications for theoretical, empirical or practical developments in the area. Referencing and the quality of the writing should be without major blemish. The answer should cover the question fully and present only relevant material. Within this range a particularly strong dissertation will be graded B+; a more limited one will be graded B-.

A satisfactory dissertation, though showing elements of the routine and predictable. While generally accurate and firmly based in the reading, it will tend to draw on a more restricted set of sources. It will probably also be based on less clearly-stated aims and/or a less coherent methodology. Indeed, it is the grasp and handling of methodological issues that will most likely differentiate between the B and C grades. The data will be presented accurately, if rather descriptively, although there should be no serious weaknesses in their portrayal or interpretation. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger dissertation will be graded C+; a weaker one C-.

A passable dissertation, which displays some familiarity with relevant literature and the issues under investigation. The aims may be poorly articulated and this incoherence will undermine the quality of the research. The work should be intelligible and factually accurate, but will contain deficiencies such as restricted use of sources, poor expression and failure to analyse or discuss the implications of the data in anything more than a thin and descriptive way. The general impression will probably be of a rather poor effort with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for an obviously hastily-executed piece of research which attempted to address a relevant set of questions. Within this range a stronger piece of work will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

A dissertation showing clear lack of understanding of the nature of research, but conveying the sense that with clearer aims and better developed instruments it might have achieved a pass. It might also clearly have been written in a hurry, with some merit, but serious gaps, in what is presented.

Work showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and limited use of inadequate sources. It could also be the mark for a very short answer with some relevant material.

Work falling short of a passable level by some combination of poor methodology, unclear aims, incoherence, factual inaccuracy and lack of familiarity with basic concepts or literature.

A dissertation containing no academic merit or evidence that the author understands the nature of the research enterprise, or made a serious effort to address the topic.

An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows originality and independent thought, together with flair and an ability to present and analyse things from different perspectives.

A comprehensive answer that remains focused on the topic and provides an authoritative response to the question. It should be fully conversant with the main issues and literature and able to incorporate these into the analysis while showing awareness of their complexities and wider ramifications. It should display strong critical and analytical skills, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to challenge them. A high level of quality should be sustained throughout.

A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the course material and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions.

A very good answer, showing qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question should be addressed fully and directly within a coherent and well-structured discussion that demonstrates awareness of the main issues and reading. The answer should have a clear focus and engage with the topic in an analytical rather than descriptive way. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation of concepts or data. Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+, a more limited one B-.

A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and show awareness of the main issues and/or evidence of independent reading, which will be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. There may be some errors of fact or interpretation, but the materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. It should attempt to engage critically with the question, though with some possible unevenness. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-.

A passable but superficial answer which understands the question and displays some learning, though with omissions and inaccuracies and scant evidence of reading. There should be a discernible structure, although the answer may lack focus or coherence. There will be few signs of insight or critical awareness and the approach will be overwhelmingly descriptive rather than analytical. This could also be the mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the topic. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

An answer that attempts to address the question, but contains serious inaccuracies, omissions and/or misunderstandings. The structure will be weak, and the focus vague. There will be no or very little evidence of reading or critical awareness and a tendency to descriptive narrative, some of dubious relevance, rather than analysis. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps. Within this band, an answer conveying the sense that with fuller analysis it might have achieved a pass should be marked between 37% and 39%. More substantial fails should receive a mark of 30-36%.

An answer showing no awareness of the relevant issues or reading and seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject. The structure will be incoherent and lacking in logical development, with no evidence of critical awareness or insight and major omissions and/or inaccuracies in the material presented.

An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with fundamental concepts or issues.

An answer with no academic merit, conveying little sense that the course has been followed or of the ability to develop a coherent argument.

University Undergraduate Common Marking Scheme

• CBSE Class 10 Sample Papers

CBSE Class 10 Security Sample Paper 2024-25 with Marking, Download in PDF

Cbse sample paper and marking scheme 2025: cbse has released the sample paper of security for class 10 for the 2025 board exams. download the security sample question paper with marking scheme in pdf here. .

CBSE Class 10 Security Sample paper 2025: The Central Board Of Secondary Education (CBSE) has made sample paper available for the all subjects for classes 10 on its official website. These sample paper help them to practice and perform better in examinations. In this article we have provided the sample paper for the CBSE Class 10 Security sample paper 2025 , along with the section wise questions and direct link to download the sample paper to prepare and practice. For now, students can take a look at the Skill Subject Sample paper. Read the complete article to download the free PDF of the Securitys sample paper and the marking scheme as well.

CBSE Class 10 Security Sample Paper: General Instructions:

1. Please read the instructions carefully.

2. This Question Paper consists of 21 questions in two sections: Section A & Section B.

3. Section A has Objective type questions whereas Section B contains Subjective type  questions.

4. Out ofthe given (5 + 16 =) 21 questions, a candidate hasto answer(5 + 10 =) 15 questions  in the allotted (maximum) time of 2 hours.

5. All questions of a particular section must be attempted in the correct order.

6. SECTION A - OBJECTIVE TYPE QUESTIONS (24 MARKS):

i) This section has 05 questions.

ii) Marks allotted are mentioned against each question/part.

iii) There is no negative marking.

iv) Do as per the instructions given.

7. SECTION B – SUBJECTIVE TYPE QUESTIONS (26 MARKS):

i) This section has 16 questions.

ii) A candidate has to do 10 questions.

iii) Do as per the instructions given.

CBSE Class 10 Security Sample Question paper 2024-25 

Section a: objective type questions .

Q.1 Answer any 4 out of the given 6 questions on Employability Skills. (1 x 4=4 Marks)

1. What makes you complete work or studies without others cheering you?

a. Self- confidence

b. Communication

c. Self -motivation

d. Self -esteem

2. Which of the following are types of motivation?

a. Internal

b. Intermediate

c. External

d. Extensive

3. Which of the following functions is not performed using a mouse?

c. Right click

d. Drag and Drop

4. Which of the following is a valid file extension for a Notepad file?

5. Ravi’s customer comes to his store and starts shouting at him. He does not get angry.  He listens to what his customer is saying He is ……

a. Hardworking

b. Confident

d. Prying new ideas

6. Rehnuma has two people who work for her. Every day , she spends one hour to learn  about what they have done that day.

a. Creates a new product

b. Divides income

c. Manages the business

d. Doing time pass

Q.2 Answer any 5 out of the given 6 questions. (1 x 5 = 5 marks)

1. On the command Savdhan, you are alert and ready for _____________________.

b. Instructions

c. Visarjan

2. Personal grooming includes personal ______________________.

b. Knowledge

d. Dressing

3. The ___________________________ is the combatant on the receiving end of any attack.

c. Attacker

4. In French the term disaster means _______________________.

5. ______________________ search and rescue operations are carried out during war.

c. Mountain

6. Cutting of supply of air/oxygen to the combustible material is known as ________________ .

a. Smoothering

c. Starving

d. Extinguishing

Q.3 Answer any 5 out of the given 6 questions. (1 x 5 = 5 marks)

1. In accordance with the constitution of India, law and order is a subject _______________

d. Distinct

2. IPC stands for Indian ___________ Code.

d. District

3. Indian Air Force has aircrafts, ___________________ units and missiles.

d. Transport

4. The Border Security Force is a ________________ force

a. Military

b. Paramilitary

c. Professional

d. None of the above

5. The _________________________ system use human characteristics that are individually unique.

a. Automatic

b. Magnetic

c. Electromagnetic

d. Biometric

6. Digestive system includes

a. Oesophagus

c. Intestines

d. All of the above

Q.4 Answer any 5 out of the given 6 questions. (1 x 5 = 5 marks)

1. A small picture that represents a folder or an application program is known as …..

2. 1 Kilobyte is equivalent to______________________ .

b. 1000 bytes

c. 1024 bytes

d. 1 megabyte

3. Files can be organized in a ___________________

b. Keyboard

4. Domain part cannot be longer than ______________ character.

5. Which symbol is used to separate user name and Domain name ?

6. Generally, an email that you compose should include

a. Recipients

b. a subject

c. a message in the body field

Q.5 Answer any 5 out of the given 6 questions. (1 x 5 = 5 marks)

1. On an average adult human body contain

a. 236 bones

b. 206 bones

c. 204 bones

d. 197 bones

2. Pulse can be checked

a. At the carotid artery

b. on the nose

c. on the palm

d. none of the above

3. ________________________ is also known as stopper knot.

a. Reef knot

b. Bow line

c.Figure of eight

d. Sheet band

4. CPR is best performed by ____________________ trained person effectively.

5. RFID Stands for __________________________ identification.

a. Rational frequency

b. Radio frequency

c. Random failure

6. DVR stands for _______________________ video recorder.

To view and access the complete sections click on the link below to download PDF: 

CBSE Class 10 Security Marking Scheme 2024-25

The marking scheme helps students by giving them the exact idea of what is needed to get good scores and grades in examination. It explains how each answers will be scored, the question weightage for exam, and makes understand what the teacher are looking for in your answer. By knowing the marking scheme students can focus on important topics and practice accordingly and see how well they are doing. To access the marking scheme for class 10 Security sample paper 2025, click on the link below to download the marking scheme in PDF format: 

CBSE Class 10 Mock Test Series

• CBSE Class 10 - Online Mock Tests and Video Courses  
• CBSE Class 10 Syllabus 2024-25 (All Subject PDFs)
• CBSE Class 10 Deleted Syllabus 2024-25 (All Subject PDFs)
• NCERT Class 10 Revised Textbooks (All Subject PDFs)
• CBSE Board Exams Twice A Year: Check Updates Here
• CBSE Additional Practice Questions for CBSE Board Exam 2024

Get here latest School , CBSE and Govt Jobs notification and articles in English and Hindi for Sarkari Naukari , Sarkari Result and Exam Preparation . Download the Jagran Josh Sarkari Naukri App .

• UGC NET Answer Key 2024
• SSC CGL Exam Analysis 2024
• RBI Grade B Admit Card 2024
• SSC GD Recruitment 2025
• SSC CGL Admit Card 2024
• UP Police Constable Question Paper 2024 PDF
• CDS Question Paper 2024
• RRB NTPC Recruitment 2024
• CBSE Class 12 Sample Papers 2024-25
• CBSE Class 10 Sample Papers 2024-25
• CBSE Class 10 Practice Papers
• Education News
• CBSE Class 10

Latest Education News

UP Police Answer Key Notice 2024 OUT at uppbpb.gov.in: Download UPPRPB Constable Question Paper and Submit Objection From Tomorrow

BEU Result OUT at beu-bih.ac.in; Direct Link to Download UG Marksheet

Vikram University Result 2024 OUT at vikramuniv.ac.in; Direct Link to Download UG and PG Marksheet

What is the difference between cucumber and zucchini?

भारत के कितने राज्यों में बहती है यमुना नदी, जानें

Visual Skill Test: Find the different umbrella in the picture in 3 seconds!

CG Home Guard Admit Card 2024 OUT at dgfscdhg.gov.in: Download Chhatisgarh Police PET Call Letter Here

NIACL Online Application 2024: एनआईएसीएल स्केल I पदों पर भर्ती के लिए आवेदन शुरू, यहाँ देखें

Expert Speak - Careers Available for Career Counsellors - Saurabh Nanda

RRB JE Vacancy 2024 for 7951 Junior Engineer Posts, Check RRB Wise Vacancies

RMPSSU Result 2024 OUT at rmpssu.ac.in; Download UG and PG Marksheet

Madhya Pradesh MP Board Class 12 Subject Wise Syllabus 2024-25: Download Detailed Syllabus PDF!

VMOU RSCIT August 2024 Result OUT at rkcl.vmou.ac.in; Download Latest Exam Certificate From NAD Digilocker

Punjab Board PSEB Class 8 Model Papers 2024-25: Download Model Test Papers Of All Subjects In PDF!

Free Aadhar Card Update: बस 4 दिन शेष...जल्द कर लें अपना आधार अपडेट, नहीं तो होगा नुकसान

Top 5 Words Of the Day for School Morning Assembly: 11th September, 2024

BEU Result 2024 OUT at beu-bih.ac.in, Direct Link to Download BTech Marksheet PDF

Difference Between Sales and Marketing

GST Council Meet: कैंसर की दवाओं और नमकीन पर टैक्स घटा, क्या हुआ सस्ता और क्या महंगा, यहां देखें

What is Solheim Cup? Where can you WATCH the Solheim Cup 2024 online for FREE?

• India Today
• Business Today
• Harper's Bazaar
• Brides Today
• Cosmopolitan
• India Today Hindi
• Reader’s Digest
• Aaj Tak Campus

Download App

CBSE releases sample papers and marking scheme for 2024-25 board exams

Students gearing up for the cbse board exams can now access the class 10, 12 sample papers and marking scheme on cbse's official website..

Listen to Story

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has officially released the Sample Question Papers (SQPs) and Marking Scheme (MS) for Classes 10 and 12 ahead of the 2024-25 board exams. Students gearing up for the exams can now access these resources on CBSE’s official website.

The marking scheme is available for a wide range of subjects, including core areas like English, Mathematics, Hindi, Science, Social Science, Accountancy, and Business Studies. In addition, students can check marking schemes for regional languages and niche subjects such as Bharatanatyam, Carnatic Music, Painting, Arabic, and more.

According to an official CBSE notification, "The Sample Question Papers (SQPs) and Marking Schemes (MS) for Classes 10 and 12 provide a framework to guide teachers and students. These serve as a broad template for uniformity and help students understand the question paper design while focusing on real-life application of concepts."

Earlier this year, in June, CBSE also revised the curriculum for various skill-based subjects, effective from the 2024-25 academic year. These revisions include updates for courses like Web Application (Class 11), Information Technology (Class 10), and Artificial Intelligence (Classes 9 and 11). The board encourages all stakeholders to review these changes and stay informed via the official CBSE website.

These efforts by CBSE aim to equip students with the skills and knowledge essential for navigating the rapidly evolving technological landscape.

• Grand Rapids/Muskegon
• Saginaw/Bay City
• All Michigan

Judge hammers mastermind of $1 million mPerks fraud scheme at sentencing

• Updated: Sep. 05, 2024, 5:11 p.m.
• | Published: Sep. 05, 2024, 5:11 p.m.

Nicholas Mui (short sleeved shirt) is sentenced Thursday, Sept. 5 for orchestrating an internet fraud scheme to steal Meijer mPerks log in information and then sell it. John Tunison

• John Tunison | [email protected]

GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- A judge hammered the mastermind of an internet fraud scheme that cost Meijer more than $1 million, ordering a prison sentence that far exceeded the recommended penalty.

Nicholas Hunter Mui, 22, of Grand Haven , was sentenced Thursday, Sept. 5 to 5-20 years in prison for a high-tech scheme that stole customer mPerks log in credentials.

The credentials were then sold on the dark web.

mPerks is the retail giant’s customer loyalty program. Customers earn points with each purchase that can be redeemed later.

Because Mui had no prior record, as well as other factors, his recommended minimum penalty based on sentencing “guidelines” was 12-20 months.

Kent County Circuit Judge Mark Trusock reasoned that the guidelines did not account for the sheer value of the theft and also that “the fact that there are thousands of people this affects.”

When Trusock issued the sentence, some of Mui’s friends and family in the courtroom could be heard sobbing.

Trusock said Mui knew he was committing a crime.

“You sold these on the internet to people who were buying those for criminal reasons,” he said. “People weren’t buying people’s names and passwords because they wanted to write a poem about it, they were going to use if for criminal activity and you knew that.”

Related: Michigan man charged with widescale fraud of Meijer mPerks accounts

Trusock also said that police interviews shows Mui admitted to committing similar crimes involving other corporations, not only Meijer, since 2019.

“That behavior is outrageous,” he said.

As part of a plea agreement, Mui agreed to forfeit cryptocurrency valued at $611,000.

Michigan Attorney General Senior Attorney Eric Sterbis, during Thursday’s sentencing, said Mui has cooperated with state police and Meijer investigators to give them insight about how he committed the crime.

“His input has been valuable and we thank him for that,” Sterbis said.

Because of the cooperation, prosecutors agreed to drop several counts of identity theft against Mui.

Defense attorney Andrew LaPres said Mui is a high school graduate, with some college education as well.

“Obviously he is a very intelligent young man,” LaPres said. “He has people in the community and his family who were just shocked and saddened upon learning this was happening and has taking part in it.”

LaPres said Mui’s parents are first-generation Chinese immigrants who operated a restaurant. They worked long hours.

As a child, Mui didn’t have many friends, the attorney said.

“His friend was his computer,” LaPres said.

During the COVID quarantine, when he didn’t have much direction in life, “he takes an interest in computers and cyber security and, one thing led to another and here is, trying to make money, and he made a horrible judgment.

“He’s very remorseful. The whole thing got out of control very fast,” LaPres said.

As part of the sentencing, Mui was ordered to pay restitution of $1,087,168 to Meijer.

Want more Grand Rapids-area news? Bookmark the local Grand Rapids news page or sign up for the free “ 3@3 Grand Rapids ” daily newsletter.

Stories by John Tunison

• Man severely injured while helping children out of burning house
• Group of 13 Kent County preschoolers stung by swarming ground nest bees
• Ottawa County's interim administrator resigning effective Oct. 4
• Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus found in Cass County mosquitos
• Victim’s mom gives emotional statement at deadly sextortion plot sentencing

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.