SCPL2601: Australian Social Policy

Grade Descriptors

Fail

<50

Work may fail for any or all of the following reasons: unacceptable levels of paraphrasing; irrelevance of content; presentation, grammar or structure so sloppy it cannot be understood; submitted very late without extension.

Pass

50-54

Written work contains evidence of minimal reading and some understanding of subject matter, offers descriptive summary of material relevant to the research topic, but may have a tendency to paraphrase; makes a reasonable attempt to organise material logically and comprehensibly and to provide scholarly documentation. There may be gaps in any or all of these areas.

55-59

Written work meets basic requirements in terms of reading and research, and demonstrates a reasonable understanding of subject matter. Offers a synthesis of relevant material and shows a genuine effort to avoid paraphrasing, has a logical and comprehensible structure and acceptable documentation, and attempts to mount an argument, though there may be weaknesses in particular areas.

60-64

Written work contains evidence of a broad and reasonably accurate command of the subject matter and some sense of its broader significance, offers synthesis and some evaluation of material, demonstrates an effort to read broadly, contains clear focus on the principal issues, understanding of relevant arguments and diverse interpretations, and a coherent argument grounded in relevant evidence, though there may be some weaknesses of clarity or structure. Articulate, properly documented.

Credit

65-69

Written work contains evidence of comprehensive reading, offers synthesis and critical evaluation of material on its own terms, takes a position in relation to various interpretations. In addition, it shows some extra spark of insight or analysis. Demonstrates understanding of broad historical significance, good selection of evidence, coherent and sustainable argument, some evidence of independent thought.

70-74

Adequate reading, research, understanding and presentation of subject area, relevant theories and methodologies.  Some evidence of ability to think theoretically as well as empirically, and to conceptualise and problematise issues.  Weaknesses include gaps in research, important unresolved problems and inconsistencies within the argument, deficiencies in clarity, and stylistic lapses.

Distinction

75-79

Sound grasp of subject area, with extensive reading and research; ability to use methodology and theory, evidence of careful and thorough discovery and original use of appropriate sources; competent analysis and evaluation of material; ability to present material clearly and succinctly with a well-thought out argument. Properly documented; writing characterised by style, clarity, and some creativity.

80 to 84

General excellence in subject area without major error or naivete; breadth of knowledge; clear familiarity with and ability to use appropriate methodologies and theories; clear evidence of some independence of thought in the subject area. Makes good attempt to ‘get behind’ the evidence and engages with its underlying assumptions, takes a critical, interrogative stance in relation to political argument and interpretation. Superior written style, clarity and creativity.

High Distinction

85 to 89

As above, but with greater evidence of intellectual independence and more originality of thought. Shows a command of the field both broad and deep, independent intellectual argument and a significant degree of original thought.

90 and above.
 

Outstanding, demonstrating independent thought throughout, a flair for the subject, and research achievement of a kind that produces at least some work of potentially publishable standard in a serious academic journal.