School of Engineering and Informatics (for staff and students)

Marking criteria MSc IAS

In all grades, deficiencies in programming, if not too great, can be compensated for by unusually good work linking some other discipline to AI. For example, a dissertation could get a very good mark because it contains an excellent analysis of some linguistic or psychological problem in computational terms even if the actual program has not been developed very far. Similarly, a not very good program might be compensated for by deep logical or mathematical analysis of the nature of the problem the program addresses.

A very good mark could also be awarded for an excellent piece of knowledge engineering by programming at a higher level than Java, i.e. the project uses a shell of some kind, not written by the student, and addresses some application area very well, working out the conceptual structure of the domain and the rules required for solving a class of problems.

General professional standards will be expected in matters of punctuation, vocabulary choice, standard English grammar, and the conventions of academic discourse (including reference to sources), in presentation of code (for programming projects), and in formal aspects of presentation (wordprocessing/ typing, printing). Program code should be submitted as an appendix to the main report.

Guidelines to students and markers on standards expected at each level

70% - 100% - Excellent
Shows very good understanding supported by evidence that the student has gone beyond what was taught by extra study, programming, or creative thought. Work at the top end of this range is of exceptional quality. Write-up: well structured, proper references, proper discussion of existing relevant work, neatly presented, interesting, clear, proper disinterested critique of what is good and bad about approach taken, thoughts about where to go next with such work. Program: code that executes efficiently, incorporates sophisticated programming features, is non-redundant, well-structured, properly commented and elegant, addresses the problem effectively for a non-trivial application.

60% - 69% - Good
Very competent in all respects, substantially correct and complete knowledge but not going beyond what was taught. Program: code that executes, incorporates some complexity, is relatively well-designed and presented (eg separated into modules, commented), addresses a reasonably non-trivial problem.

55% - 59% - Satisfactory
Competent in most respects. Minor gaps in knowledge but reasonable understanding of fundamental concepts. Program: code that executes, and addresses a simple problem.

50% - 54% - Borderline
Significant gaps in knowledge but some understanding of fundamental concepts. Code that largely executes but is, for example, derived from exercise, lecture or textbook examples or minimally adjusts a program from a textbook or other source.

30% - 49% - Fail
Inadequate knowledge of the subject. Work is seriously flawed, displaying major lack of understanding, irrelevance or incoherence. Code that does not execute, or is not coherent in terms of the problem being addressed or the methods to be employed in doing this.

Below 30% - Unacceptable (or not submitted)
Work is either not submitted or, if submitted, so seriously flawed that it does not constitute a bona-fide script.

School of Engineering and Informatics (for staff and students)

School Office:
School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Chichester 1 Room 002, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QJ
enquiries@enginf.sussex.ac.uk
T 01273 (67) 8195

School Office opening hours: Monday - Friday 09.00 - 17.00
School Office location [PDF 1.74MB]