The key criteria

All staff expect essays to achieve the following. (Just how well you achieve them is reflected
in your mark!)
1.

Answering the question

2.

Producing a coherent and clear argument and analysis

3.

Revealing knowledge, reading and evidence

4.

Demonstrating a critical ability

5.

Writing lucidly with good spelling, punctuation and syntax

6.

Providing clear frameworks, structures, and signposts

So what do you have to do in your work to gain a certain

class of mark?
There are no absolute answers to this, but in order to give some idea we conducted a quick
survey of sociology lecturers asking them to say what they are looking for when marking
essays. Below, we quote verbatim.

A First (70+)
These are excellent essays which meet all the usual criteria but go beyond to 'originality'.

Unusually wide reading, an original and refreshing argument, something which

surprises in the depth of analysis, knowledge and understanding.

Clearly written, well structured and signposted. Originality: understanding of a wide

range of literature or, if essay calls for more detailed analysis of limited literature then a very
thorough understanding of this. Evidence of reflection and own analysis of the literature
together with an ability to see how lessons learned could be applied to other
contexts/examples

Goes beyond requirements of question in display of creativity, unusual lines of

argument that are well backed up. Displays very sophisticated theoretical analysis.

As 2:1 + originality and wider referencing to debates.

Showing originality of thought.

Originality; lucid critical evaluation of wide range of material; may make reference to
other relevant issues.

Originality, creativity and comprehensive coverage of issues in relation to question,

good presentation and exposition.

Displaying 'flair' in some respect. Impressively wide reading and or analytical skills.
Very strong relevant structure to writing with clear, typically novel, clearly original slant/and
conclusion.

Good coverage of literature; original argument; well structured, well written.

A 2:1 (60+)
These are very good essays which fully meet all the key criteria.

Well-structured essay. Wide reading. Good argument.

Widely researched, analytical, reflecting creatively on the question, well structured,

showing evidence of an independent perspective, more than a literature summary.

Show understanding of relevant literature; attempt to answer the question explicitly,

good signposting with critical commentary and clear conclusion. A certain degree of selfreflectiveness and attempt to contribute own thoughts.

Completes theoretical and/or analytical tasks set in question. Cover all the major
issues and some minor ones. Clearly written and well organised.

Thorough understanding and clear critical argument. Tight structure and references to
many central issues.

Clear understanding of the main issues. Substantial knowledge of relevant literature,

sourced and dealt with critically. Well structured answer.

Critical discussion and presentation of an argument, or problem using material to

illustrate points made. Taking 'control' of the topic and dealing with it in own terms, rather than
letting the material speak for itself!

Ability to describe and analyse issues in relation to the question, thoughtfulness.

Comprehensive knowledge of topic. Clearly cogent and structured argument. Well

written and relevant. Clear conclusion.

Thorough coverage of literature; well structured argument; directly addresses

question.

You push the reading around to make an argument (i.e. not a list of 'books I have
read').

A 2:2 (50+)
These are good essays which meet most of the key criteria.

Understanding of lecture material & basic reading. Answers question adequately.

Covers the basic reading, but summarising the literature rather than engaging
critically with it. Descriptive and lacking an analytic form.

Jumps about from topic to topic without any clear structure or signposting to the
essay. Does not refer very much to the literature, maybe just cites one & possibly two works
in any detail. A general account which broadly fits the question.

Completes most major tasks expected in question, but either too simplistic or lacking
some co-ordination/structure.

Loose structure. Some understanding but lack of critical thought. Reference to the
texts.

Deals with the major issues clearly. Refers to the relevant literature, sourced.
Introduction of irrelevant material will pull down to low 2:2.

Competent presentation of debates, literature and relevant substantive material with

critical evaluation. Demonstrate grasp of problem and issues it raises.

Ability to grasp main issues, but not in any great depth.

Knowledge of topic marred by "shopping list" style or descriptive rather than analytic
focus. Showing tendency to digress.

Reasonable coverage of literature; not well expressed, just addresses question,

poorly structured.

The reading tends to dictate the essay - a series of prcis: 'what X has said', 'what Y
has said', but in some kind of order with references and introduction and conclusion.

A 3rd (40+)
An acceptable but weak essay. Does not meet all the criteria and is below standard on many

Badly structured with minimal reference to course material.

Thinly researched. Conjectural, poorly planned, wanders from the question.

Jumps about all over the place without any reference to the question. Does not make
any reference to the literature; just rambles around the general theme of the essay giving
opinions without any organisation or substantiation. Show intelligence but little knowledge of
the course.

Missing an important aspect of the question. Or very confused. Lack of coordination/structure.

Lack of structure. Fails to address question and shows confusion but some basic
knowledge.

Shows knowledge of the major issues and relevant literature, but mostly not strictly
relevant to the question. Major gaps in analysis.

Answers question with reference to literature but demonstrates no widespread

knowledge or analytical grasp of issues.

Poorly written. Very superficial grasp of issues.

Patchy knowledge of topic. Descriptive and sketchy in style of structure. Thin on

quantity as well as quality but enough grasp to merit honours.

Poor literature coverage, fails to address question, but contains some relevant
discussion, poorly expressed.

No introduction; just a set of bits of reading not too well precied, not in order, not
much range, poor references, defects of understanding.

Fail (below 40)

A poor essay which neither meets key criteria or provides an adequate level of work.

Little or no evidence of reading. Fails to address question.

Does not attempt to answer question. Misunderstandings of concepts. Incorrect.
Disorganised.
Nonsense. Random shuffling of points. Misunderstands major issues.

Misunderstands question or does not make distinction between giving an answer to a

question and throwing in anything one knows on a topic.

Does not address question or reveals little evidence of familiarity with relevant
literature.

Irrelevant or uninformed or "lazy" answers.

Assertive, unsubstantiated arguments.

Little acquaintance with literature, poorly written, no argument.

Incoherent, unread, illiterate. Too short, given the time available. Incomplete.
Repetitive!