Applied honours thesis evaluation
You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form.
Assessor and author information
Assessor's name (you)
Assessor's e-mail
2024 T1 Student's name
- Select -
Rebecca Li
Yucheng Ye
Minghao Mo
Thesis title
Are you a supervisor?
Yes
No
Evaluation
Overall comments (not confidential)
Please provide details to justify your mark.These comments are not confidential.
Literature coverage mark [25]
- Adequate, sufficient, and state of the art references.
- Good breadth of literature review: the literature review should be well integrated in the project.
- Good formatting of the references.
Note: it is not just counting references, and the breadth will vary depending on the topic.
- Select -
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Justification for the marks (literature coverage)
Please provide details to justify your mark.These comments are not confidential.
Exposition mark [25]
- Well organised narrative (structure of the content).
- Good layout of the thesis (e.g., clear and appropriate sections).
- Clear presentation and sophistication of the material presented (e.g., effective use of figures and equations).
- Good quality of writing.
- Relevant length (not too many nor too few details).
- Select -
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Justification for the marks (exposition)
Please provide details to justify your mark.These comments are not confidential.
Critical analysis mark [25]
- Evidence of solid understanding of the problem.
- Clear and coherent interpretation of the data, methods, and / or results (from the thesis and / or from other studies).
- Quality of the discussion (e.g., context of the results, limitations, advantages, implications).
- Select -
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Justification for the marks (critical analysis)
Please provide details to justify your mark.These comments are not confidential.
Depth of contribution / Originality mark [25]
Note: this should apply to the contribution of the student (not the design of the project from the supervisor). Please see the contribution statement form signed by the student and supervisor.
In-depth contribution to the field, for instance in the following:
- Significant new results.
- Development or extension of a new technique, approach, analysis, or model.
- Original application and implementation of a method to a new area.
- In-depth novel review in the field.
- Select -
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Justification for the marks (Depth of contribution / Originality)
Please provide details to justify your mark.These comments are not confidential.
Overall mark range [100]
Please enter an overall mark range, e.g. 81-85.
The sections do NOT need to be equally weighted if they are not equally relevant for the project.
A first-class honours student is expected to obtain a mark above 85 (it means that they are eligible for a PhD scholarship), a second-class (division one) student a mark above 75, a second-class (division two) student a mark above 65, and a third-class student above 50.
A mark above 95 (equivalent university medal) is only expected for a well-structured thesis in a challenging area, which displays a high level of mathematical sophistication and understanding, a substantial degree of insight and independent thought, and will typically, but not always, contain new material.
Confidential comments to the committee
Please provide any comments that may assist the committee in assigning a final grade. These comments should not be passed onto the student and might include comparisons to previous students.
Leave this field blank