Subject-specific description of grades
I. Factors that should be focused on during assessment
(factors a-g count equally and are in a non-prioritized order)
a. The candidate's ability to delve deeper into a problem area and clarify issues.
b. The candidate's ability to obtain an overview of and understand theoretical and empirical research in the problem area.
c. The candidate's ability to independently process subject matter included in thesis work.
d. The candidate's originality regarding contributions to new issues and outcomes.
e. The candidate's use of method.
f. The candidate's ability to convey and present their work, as well as adhering to the composition norms of scientific publications. For example, referencing techniques.
II. Grading scales
A: A particularly good and well-written task that is well-structured, has a very clearly defined problem for discussion, advanced and adequate theory and method management, a particularly well-conducted analysis and very well-formulated conclusions or recommendations. The candidate shows exceptionally good reflective and analytical ability and an unusually large degree of academic maturity and independence.
B: A very good and well-written task that is well-structured, has a clearly defined problem for discussion, adequate theory and method management, a well-conducted analysis and well-formulated conclusions or recommendations. The candidate shows good reflective and analytical ability and a large degree of academic maturity and independence. Minor shortcomings may be accepted.
C: A relatively well-written task that is satisfactory in most areas: largely well-structured and defined, a reasonably adequate theory and method management, a satisfactory analysis and formulated conclusions or recommendations that are acceptable. The candidate shows a certain amount of reflective and/or analytical ability and a certain degree of academic maturity and independence. A number of shortcomings may be accepted. Alternatively, a task with a more original discussion problem and/or a higher theoretical and methodical level of ambition, but where the implementation shows weaknesses of a theoretical and/or methodical nature.
D: A task that has some academic qualities, but also has significant shortcomings or weaknesses in one or more of the following areas: outline, formulation, defining the discussion problem, theory and method management, analysis, formulation of conclusions or recommendations. The candidate shows a certain amount weakness regarding reflective and/or analytical ability and has a relatively low degree of academic maturity and independence.
E: A task that has a few academic qualities, but also has significant shortcomings or weaknesses in most of the following areas: outline, formulation, defining the discussion problem, theory and method management, analysis and/or formulation of conclusions or recommendations. The candidate shows clear weaknesses regarding reflective and/or analytical ability and has a low degree of academic maturity and independence.
F: The task is characterized by such serious flaws and shortcomings of a theoretical, methodical and presentational nature that it cannot be approved. III Plagiarism/copying Plagiarism/copying is considered cheating. In cases where this is suspected, the grade is not disclosed to the candidate and the case is processed in accordance with the advisory guidelines regarding the handling of cheating/attempted cheating at the institution concerned.
III Plagiarism/copying
Plagiarism/copying is considered cheating. In cases where this is suspected, the grade is not disclosed to the candidate and the case is processed in accordance with the advisory guidelines regarding the handling of cheating/attempted cheating at the institution concerned.