University of Exeter Handbook (Physics) Questions/Comments Department (Physics)

Assessment Criteria for PHYM425 Quantum Devices


Reports for PHYM425 Quantum Devices will be double-marked and awarded marks (maximum 100) using the using the following criteria:

Mark RangeQualities of Report
80 - 100%An assignment that is difficult to fault, with the possible exception of one or two minor errors.
70 - 79%Outcome at excellent level. No significant deficiencies, but a number of minor errors. Clear text and diagrams with a well defined focus, reflecting a good knowledge of material and good competence in its critical assessment.
60 - 69%Outcome at focal level. Only one or two few significant deficiencies. Expected components present, with good content, structure and presentation.
50 - 59%No major flaws, but a number of significant deficiencies. Expected components present in an acceptable form.
40 - 49%Outcome at threshold level. Only one or two major flaws. Expected components present in a recognisable form.
20 - 39%Fail. A number of major flaws. Lacking in overall structure. Evidence of a lack of basic knowledge and critical ability.
0 - 19%Nothing approaching an acceptable assignment.


Each student will give a presentation lasting for 15 minutes, with a further 5 minutes for questions. The presentation should be pitched at a level comprehensible to the other students, who will be expected to attend all the talks. The presentations will be peer-assessed, with moderation by the instructor. Each student will complete a pro-forma for each other student's presentation. The instructor will use the peer assessments for each presentation to arrive at a final mark, which, in accordance with the Department's Marking Strategy, will be recorded, along with comments, on a final-mark pro-forma. The marks for this assessment contribute to the overall module mark in proportion to the weighting indicated in the module descriptor.

The overall mark for this assessment (out of maximum 100) relates to the following four areas each of which is marked out of 25 using the scale below:

Mark RangeQuality
20 - 25At a level expected of a polished, high quality conference review talk, perhaps with one or two minor deficiencies.
14 - 19Could reach the standard above if several deficiencies, one or two possibly major, were attended to.
9 - 13Will not reach the highest standard without major work in most areas.
0 - 8Fail. An unacceptable standard of work.

University of Exeter Handbook (Physics) Questions/Comments Department (Physics)