tesifyUK
Start free
How it worksFAQBlogHelpContactLog in

Tag: marking criteria

  • How Much of Your Dissertation Mark Is for Writing? The Published UK Criteria (2026)

    How Much of Your Dissertation Mark Is for Writing? The Published UK Criteria (2026)

    No UK university publishes a national standard for how much of a dissertation mark is awarded for writing, and at least three publish undergraduate criteria that contain no writing category at all. That is the finding. Below are the actual published band descriptors from named UK universities, what they reward, and the one thing they agree on — which is not grammar.

    What the published criteria actually say, band by band

    Every document in this table was opened and its undergraduate scope confirmed from the document itself. The wording is quoted as published.

    Institution and document First 2:1 2:2
    Royal Holloway, Criminology and Sociology dissertation handbook “have an incisive and fluent style, with no significant errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar” “have a fluent style, with few errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar” “have a straightforward style, and may include some errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar”
    University of Edinburgh, School of Social and Political Science “the discussion should move beyond a mainly descriptive account of the results, to develop its own comments, points and interpretations” “Referencing and the quality of the writing should be without major blemish” “The data will be presented accurately, if rather descriptively… The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable”
    UCL, Institute of Archaeology “style and word choice show fluency with ideas & flashes of verve” “style & word choice rarely detract from conveying of ideas” “style and word choice sometimes detract from conveying of ideas”
    Newcastle University, English Literature, Language and Linguistics “Style and expression are of a high academic standard, polished and fluent, with a strong command of discipline-specific vocabulary” “May present some problems of style and expression, but these do not interfere with the communication of the argument” “may present problems of style and expression that affect the communication of the argument”
    University of Nottingham, School of Sociology and Social Policy — “Source material is treated critically… The argument is well structured and clear, with no significant confusion” “critical appraisal is underdeveloped. Analysis lacks depth”

    The pattern: the band boundary is criticality, not correctness

    Read down those columns and one thing is consistent. The prose descriptors move in small increments — fluent, then fluent with few errors, then straightforward. The analytical descriptors move in jumps.

    Keele makes this unmissable. In its generic undergraduate assessment criteria, the writing clause is word-for-word identical in the first-class and upper-second bands: “Clearly structured, robust and persuasive arguments, lucidly written, uses clear and accurate expression”. The same sentence appears in both. Only the critical-analysis clause differs. On that rubric, prose quality cannot move you from a 2:1 to a first, because the rubric asks the same of both.

    Nottingham states the same logic explicitly, and it is the single most useful sentence in any of these documents: “It may be helpful to see the lower second class as the starting point… Achieving a higher result requires something extra — and this will usually be found in the quality of analysis and criticism, in the presentation of a sustained and coherent argument…”

    The word markers reach for when that something extra is missing is descriptive. It appears in band after band. Edinburgh’s 2:2: data “presented accurately, if rather descriptively”. Edinburgh’s fail band: “failure to analyse or discuss the implications of the data in anything more than a thin and descriptive way”. Newcastle’s 2:2: “more descriptive than analytical”. Nottingham’s third: “Source material is treated uncritically, and analysis is flawed or non-existent.” Nottingham’s geography criteria describe a 2:2 dissertation as “pedestrian or lacking in imagination and critical insight… Satisfactory, but not stylish or perceptive.”

    A returned dissertation chapter carrying a marker's handwritten comment beside a descriptive passage
    The commonest single word in the 2:2 band descriptors examined is “descriptive”.

    The weightings, where any exist at all

    Almost no UK undergraduate dissertation rubric publishes a percentage for writing. Two that do something close:

    Institution and document What is published Effective weight for presentation
    University of Manchester, Department of Mathematics, Undergraduate Project Guide 2019/20 “there is a total of 90 marks for the dissertation. Half of these marks are allocated to communication of ideas (introduction, 10 marks; presentation, 15 marks and accuracy of argument, 20 marks) and half the marks awarded for comprehension (choice of content, 25 marks and understanding of material, 20 marks). The last 10 marks are for the oral presentation.” 15 of 90 marks
    University of Cambridge, Computer Science and Technology, Part II project assessment “Introduction and preparation (30 marks) / Implementation and contribution (45 marks) / Evaluation and conclusions (25 marks)” — with the rider that candidates “who fail to adhere to the prescribed structure… will not receive high marks for presentation.” No allocation; enforced by penalty

    Note what the Manchester breakdown really shows: half the available marks sit under the heading communication of ideas, of which presentation is one component alongside the introduction and the accuracy of the argument. Read carelessly, that looks like half the degree is for writing. Read properly, it means the department treats structuring and expressing an argument as inseparable from having one.

    The three that decline to mark writing at all

    This is where the sector genuinely splits, and it is not a matter of emphasis.

    SOAS excludes it by policy. Its marking criteria policy states that “The minimum core criteria intentionally do not include standards concerning the presentational aspects of the work, such as spelling and punctuation in written assignments… Such additional criteria are not standard to all modules”. That is a deliberate institutional decision, not an omission.

    Bristol’s level 6 criteria — level 6 being third-year undergraduate — contain no category for spelling, grammar, style, referencing or presentation. The only writing-adjacent row reads “High-level academic skills consistently applied” at 70 to 79 against “Academic skills consistently applied” at 50 to 59.

    Brunel’s undergraduate grade descriptors likewise carry no referencing, spelling or presentation bullet. Writing appears only as “an excellent ability to communicate clearly and concisely” at A against “an ability to communicate clearly and concisely” at B.

    Against those, UCL’s Institute of Archaeology scores three separate presentation dimensions — writing, visuals and referencing. Two published UK undergraduate rubrics, opposite decisions about whether presentation is assessable at all.

    Why there is no national figure, in the sector’s own words

    The absence is documented rather than merely observed. Three institutions state it directly.

    • Durham, on its Common Awards provision: the assessment guidance pages “do not provide distinct assessment guidelines or marking criteria for dissertations, pointing people instead to the generic guidance for ‘Essays and other written assignments’”, and institutions “are free… to design their own procedures for marking dissertations.”
    • Manchester, in its university marking scheme: “Faculties and Schools will publish more detailed marking criteria.”
    • Cambridge, in its project assessment guidance: “These marking guidelines are not a detailed mark scheme. Part II projects are different for every student, and so marking necessarily relies upon the informed judgement of the Examiners.”

    Edinburgh adds the warning that matters most to you as a student: “Not all assignments use these criteria… some assignments will instead use different, bespoke criteria developed by the Course Organiser.” The university-level document you find first may not be the one your dissertation is marked against.

    The divergence runs inside single institutions as well as between them. Nottingham’s own quality manual prints several incompatible schemes side by side as examples. Royal Holloway runs two unrelated undergraduate dissertation schemes in different departments. Edinburgh’s social and political science school uses a three-criterion rubric for undergraduate coursework and a different scheme for the undergraduate dissertation.

    Two universities' dissertation criteria side by side, weighting written communication differently
    Two published UK undergraduate rubrics can disagree about whether presentation is assessable at all.

    Even the scales do not match

    Among the documents examined, the marking instruments themselves differ in kind: continuous zero to 100 marking; categorical marking where only a few marks are available within each band; a 16-point letter scale; a 24-point scale; and letter grades with no percentages printed at all. Referencing expectations differ too — the rubrics examined variously mark against Harvard, against APA, against departmental guidelines, and against the standards set out in a specific handbook.

    The practical consequence: comparing your marking criteria with a friend’s at another university tells you almost nothing, and a mark of 68 does not mean the same thing in two places. Our guide to degree classification statistics covers what happens to those marks once they reach an exam board, and who marks your dissertation and how it is moderated covers who applies the criteria.

    What to do with this

    1. Get the criteria for your specific module, not the university-level scheme. Edinburgh’s warning above is the reason.
    2. Find the word that changes between the 2:1 and the first band. On most of these rubrics it is a word about analysis, not about prose. That tells you where the marks are.
    3. Take “descriptive” seriously as a diagnosis. If your chapter reports what was found and stops, it is sitting in the 2:2 band descriptor on four of the five rubrics above, however clean the sentences are.
    4. Do not conclude that writing does not matter because your rubric omits it. Criticality is realised in sentences — an interpretation that is not written down is not marked.

    Two sentence-level decisions that markers do notice, and that no rubric explains, are covered separately: whether you can use “I” and what tense each chapter takes. And on the question of how much reading your bibliography should show, our guide to how many references a dissertation should have works from the same kind of published criteria.

    Writing so the analysis is visible

    The gap these rubrics describe is not a vocabulary gap. It is the difference between a chapter that reports and a chapter that argues — and it is fixed at the point where you write the sentence after the evidence, not at the proofreading stage.

    Draft your dissertation in Tesify: keep your research questions beside the chapter so every section can be checked against what it is supposed to answer, and keep the bibliography formatting itself so the clerical marks look after themselves. The analysis stays 100% yours — that is the part no rubric will give you credit for outsourcing. There is a free tier.

    Frequently asked questions

    How many marks does writing quality carry in a UK dissertation?

    There is no sector-wide figure, and almost no UK department publishes one. The clearest published weighting found is the University of Manchester’s undergraduate mathematics project guide, which allocates 15 of 90 marks to presentation. Most rubrics assign no percentage to writing at all — they fold it into holistic band descriptors.

    Do all UK universities mark writing quality?

    No, and this is the sharpest disagreement in the data. SOAS excludes it by policy: its minimum core criteria “intentionally do not include standards concerning the presentational aspects of the work, such as spelling and punctuation in written assignments”. Bristol’s and Brunel’s undergraduate criteria contain no spelling, grammar, referencing or presentation category either.

    What actually separates a first from a 2:1?

    Across the rubrics examined it is criticality rather than prose. Keele is the clearest case: its writing clause is word-for-word identical in the first-class and upper-second bands — “Clearly structured, robust and persuasive arguments, lucidly written, uses clear and accurate expression”. Only the critical-analysis clause changes between the two.

    What does “descriptive” mean when a marker writes it?

    It means your sentences report what was found or said without stating what it means. Edinburgh’s social and political science criteria draw the line at exactly this point: a first-class dissertation “should move beyond a mainly descriptive account of the results, to develop its own comments, points and interpretations.”

    Where does the 2:2 band usually lose its marks?

    At analysis, not at grammar. Nottingham’s sociology criteria describe a 2:2 as work where “The treatment, however, is dependent on the sources, and critical appraisal is underdeveloped. Analysis lacks depth”. Newcastle’s language and linguistics criteria describe the same band as “more descriptive than analytical”.

    Do style and expression ever change the band on their own?

    Rarely alone, but they are described as a threshold effect. Newcastle’s bands turn on whether the prose gets in the way: a 2:1 “May present some problems of style and expression, but these do not interfere with the communication of the argument”, while a 2:2 “may present problems of style and expression that affect the communication of the argument.”

    Is there a national UK standard for dissertation marking?

    No. Durham’s Common Awards guidance states that its assessment pages “do not provide distinct assessment guidelines or marking criteria for dissertations”, and that institutions “are free… to design their own procedures for marking dissertations.” Manchester likewise devolves it: “Faculties and Schools will publish more detailed marking criteria.”

    Do two UK universities ever use the same marking scale?

    Often not even the same kind of scale. The documents examined use continuous 0 to 100 marking, categorical marking with only a few permitted marks per band, a 16-point letter scale, a 24-point scale, and letter grades with no percentages printed at all. Comparing your criteria with a friend’s at another university is close to meaningless.

    Which referencing style do the criteria assume?

    Whichever your department has chosen, and they differ. Among the rubrics examined, one marks against Harvard, another against APA, another against its own departmental guidelines, and another simply against the standards set out in its handbook. There is no default you can assume.

    Does presentation get its own marks in science and engineering?

    Sometimes it is enforced by penalty rather than by allocation. Cambridge’s computer science project assessment gives presentation no separate marks, but states that candidates “who fail to adhere to the prescribed structure… will not receive high marks for presentation.” The requirement is real even where the weighting is invisible.

    Should I ask my department for its marking criteria?

    Yes, and it is a reasonable request — these are published documents. Ask for the criteria for your specific dissertation module rather than the university-level scheme, because the two often differ and the module-level one is what your marker uses.

    If the criteria do not mention writing, can I stop worrying about it?

    No. Even rubrics with no writing category reward “an excellent ability to communicate clearly and concisely”, and the criticality that every band descriptor turns on is realised in sentences. Writing is how analysis becomes visible to a marker; a rubric that never names it still marks it indirectly.

  • How Many References Should a Dissertation Have?

    How Many References Should a Dissertation Have?

    There is no required number. No UK university publishes one, no national standard exists, and undergraduate marking criteria describe reading in terms of breadth, range and synthesis rather than count. As a working heuristic, a 10,000-word empirical dissertation typically cites somewhere around 40 to 60 sources — but the count is a symptom of adequate reading, never the target.

    Why does no one give you a number?

    Because the number is not what is being assessed, and any figure would be wrong for most dissertations that used it. A literature-based dissertation in history cites far more than a lab-based project in chemistry that reports original data. A systematic review cites everything that met its inclusion criteria, which might be nine studies or ninety. A dissertation with a narrow, well-defined question cites less than one surveying a broad field — and is often the better piece of work.

    The absence is deliberate rather than an oversight. Departments set word limits precisely and reference counts not at all, because a word limit constrains scope while a reference count would reward padding. Any figure circulating online as “the standard number of references for a dissertation” is somebody’s estimate assembled from experience, not a rule you can cite.

    What do UK marking criteria actually say?

    They talk about reading constantly and never count it. Two named institutions show the pattern.

    The London School of Economics Sociology undergraduate mark frame builds its whole ladder out of engagement with literature. First Class Honours (70–100%) requires “an outstanding breadth and depth of reading”, with answers above 80% “outstanding in terms of originality, sophistication and breadth of understanding of relevant themes and material”. An Upper Second (60–69%) “draws on a good range of relevant literature”. A Lower Second (50–59%) “demonstrates some engagement with relevant literature” and “may rely more heavily on description than on independent analysis”. A Third (40–49%) “demonstrates limited knowledge of the relevant literature”. A Fail “may be based entirely on lecture material” and “fail to demonstrate knowledge of the relevant literature”, while a Bad Fail is “likely to be poorly presented with little or no referencing”.

    The University of Edinburgh‘s School of Social and Political Science undergraduate marking descriptors draw the same ladder with different words. A-grade work “critically engages with diverse literatures in crafting an original and academically robust argument” and is “grounded in an exceptionally insightful reading of relevant literature”, where “the literature is synthesised in illuminating and creative ways”. Descending the bands, work is “grounded in some engagement with relevant academic literature, although the range may be limited and engagement more in the form of descriptive summaries”, and lower still “the range of reading may, however, be quite limited”.

    Read the two frames together and the criterion becomes explicit. The distinction between bands is synthesis versus descriptive summary, and diverse literatures versus a limited range. Neither of those is a number, and neither can be improved by adding entries to a bibliography.

    An undergraduate marking criteria grid describing what each classification band expects of reading
    Every band on the ladder is defined by how the literature is used. None of them is defined by how much of it there is.

    So is there a useful rule of thumb?

    Yes, provided you treat it as a diagnostic rather than a target. Sources tend to scale with the length of the argument, and roughly one source per 150 to 250 words of a typical empirical dissertation is a pattern many supervisors would recognise. On the common UK undergraduate word limits that produces:

    Dissertation length Rough working range Weighted towards
    6,000–8,000 words 25–40 sources Literature review and discussion
    8,000–10,000 words 35–55 sources Literature review and discussion
    10,000–12,000 words 45–70 sources Literature review and discussion
    Literature-based or review dissertation Substantially higher The review is the whole study

    This is a heuristic, not a source. Its only real use is as an alarm: if you are at 10,000 words with twelve references, something is wrong, and if you are at 6,000 words with 180, something else is. Neither number tells you what to fix — the sections below do.

    One structural note that changes the arithmetic entirely: a literature-based dissertation redistributes its word budget so that the review and analysis absorb what methodology and results would otherwise take, which is one of the reasons the choice matters at planning stage, as our comparison of a literature review and a systematic review sets out.

    Where should the references actually sit?

    Not evenly. In a conventional empirical dissertation the density varies sharply by chapter, and markers read the distribution as evidence of whether you understood each chapter’s job.

    The literature review carries the most, by a wide margin — it is the chapter whose entire purpose is engagement with other people’s work. The introduction cites lightly, enough to establish that the problem is real. The methodology cites methods literature, not topic literature: the sources justifying your design, your instrument and your analysis. The results chapter often cites almost nothing, because it reports what you found. The discussion is the second densest chapter, because interpreting findings means putting them back into conversation with the literature — and a discussion with no citations is the single clearest sign of a dissertation that stopped at description.

    If your reference list looks adequate overall but your discussion cites three sources, the count is hiding the problem rather than revealing it.

    What counts as a “good range”?

    Four properties, all of which markers can see and none of which is a number.

    Recency alongside foundations. A field’s canonical works plus recent empirical studies. All-recent reads as a student who found a database and not a discipline; all-foundational reads as one who stopped reading in 1998.

    Primary over secondary. Cite the study, not the textbook’s summary of the study. A reference list dominated by textbooks and review articles tells a marker the primary literature was never opened.

    Peer-reviewed at the core. Grey literature, government reports and industry sources have a legitimate place, particularly in applied disciplines, but they supplement the peer-reviewed core rather than replacing it.

    Genuine disagreement. Edinburgh’s phrase is “diverse literatures”. A reference list where every source agrees with your conclusion usually means the search stopped when the answer appeared. Including work that complicates your argument, and dealing with it, is what “critical” means in a marking criterion.

    Journal articles sorted into thematic piles rather than counted as a list
    Grouping your reading into themes tells you whether you have a range. Counting it tells you nothing.

    What should you do if your list looks thin?

    Diagnose before you search. Thin lists usually have one of three causes and each has a different fix.

    1. The question is too narrow or too new. Widen the search to the adjacent literature — the same phenomenon in a different population, or the same method applied to a different problem — and say explicitly in the review why you are drawing on it.
    2. The searching was too shallow. One database and one search string produces one slice of a field. Follow the reference lists of your three most relevant papers backwards, and follow their citations forwards.
    3. You read enough but cited too little. Common and easily fixed: claims stated without attribution, and paragraphs summarising a body of work with a single citation at the end. Attribute properly and the count rises for the right reason.

    What not to do is add sources you have not read. Markers open unfamiliar references, a fabricated or misattributed one is found quickly, and a reference list padded with classic works the dissertation never engages with reads worse than a shorter honest one. The same principle governs tool use: our guide to writing a literature review with AI honestly draws the line in the same place — never accept a citation from a tool you have not opened.

    And if your list looks too long?

    Long is rarely penalised directly, but it carries two real risks. The first is that citations you never discuss make the review a catalogue rather than an argument — exactly the “descriptive summaries” Edinburgh’s middle bands describe. The second is administrative: some departments count in-text citations towards the word limit and some do not, and a heavily cited dissertation can breach a limit for reasons that have nothing to do with its prose, as our survey of dissertation word counts across UK universities found. Check your inclusion rule before you plan chapter lengths.

    Keeping the mechanics under control makes all of this cheaper. A reference manager holds the library — our comparison of Zotero, Mendeley and EndNote covers which suits a dissertation — and the formatting rules are in our Harvard referencing guide. If you would rather the bibliography simply maintained itself, Tesify builds it from what your text actually cites as you draft, in your citation style, so the list always matches the argument. It is free to start, and everything stays 100% written by you.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is there a minimum number of references for a UK dissertation?

    No. No UK university publishes a minimum, and marking criteria are written in terms of breadth and engagement rather than count. If your handbook states a figure, that figure governs you — but most do not.

    How many references does a 10,000-word dissertation need?

    As a working range, roughly 45 to 70 for an empirical project, and materially more for a literature-based one. Treat that as a sanity check rather than a target; a well-argued dissertation at 35 sources outperforms a padded one at 90.

    Do markers count references?

    Not as a criterion. LSE’s mark frame asks for “an outstanding breadth and depth of reading” at first-class level and “a good range of relevant literature” at 2:1, and Edinburgh’s descriptors separate bands by whether literature is “synthesised in illuminating and creative ways” or handled as “descriptive summaries”. None of those is countable.

    Can I have too many references?

    Yes, in effect. Sources you list but never discuss turn the review into a catalogue, which is precisely what the middle marking bands describe, and heavy citation can push you over a word limit where your department counts in-text citations.

    Should every chapter have the same number of references?

    No. The literature review and discussion carry most of them, the methodology cites methods literature, the introduction cites lightly and a results chapter may cite almost nothing. A discussion with no citations is the pattern markers notice most.

    Do websites and reports count as references?

    They count, and in applied disciplines they can be essential, but they supplement a peer-reviewed core rather than substituting for it. A reference list built mainly from web pages reads as a search that never reached the literature.

    Does the reference list count towards my word limit?

    It depends on your department, and UK practice genuinely diverges — some count in-text citations, some exclude footnotes and bibliography entirely. Find your own inclusion rule in the handbook before allocating words to chapters.

    Is it bad to cite the same author many times?

    Not if the author genuinely dominates the relevant literature, which happens in small fields. It becomes a problem when it signals that your reading stopped at one research group — the fix is to find who disagrees with them.

    How many sources should be in the literature review specifically?

    Most of your total, since it is the chapter whose purpose is engagement with existing work. Judge it by whether you can group your sources into themes with genuine tensions between them, not by how many are in the pile.

    My supervisor said my reference list is “thin”. What do they mean?

    Usually one of three things: the searching was shallow, the reading was adequate but under-attributed, or the question is too narrow for the literature that exists. Ask which, because the three fixes are entirely different and only one of them involves reading more.

    Should I include everything I read, even if I did not cite it?

    Only if your department asks for a bibliography rather than a reference list. A reference list contains what you cited; a bibliography may include background reading. Check which your handbook requires, and never pad one to look like the other.