NATIONAL GRADING SCALE: GENERAL QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION
(University and College Council Affairs Committee)
| Symbol | Designation | General, qualitative description of assessment criteria |
A | Outstanding | Outstanding performance clearly distinguishable. The candidate demonstrates an excellent degree of independent judgment.? |
B | Very good | Very good performance. The candidate demonstrates a very good degree of independent judgment. |
C | Good | A good performance which is satisfactory in most areas. The candidate demonstrates a good degree of independent judgment in the most important areas. |
D | Satisfactory | A satisfactory performance, but with significant shortcomings. The candidate shows a limited degree of independent judgment. |
E | Adequate | The performance meets the minimum criteria, but no more. The candidate displays little independent judgment. |
F | Fail | The performance does not meet the minimum academic requirements. The candidate displays an absence of independent judgment and thinking. |
?
SUBJECT-SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA:
UNDERGRADUATE (Bachelor-level)
| Symbol | Designation | General, qualitative description of assessment criteria | Subject-specific description of evaluation criteria* | ECTS- distribution | Frame values quantitive distribution |
A | Outstanding | High level of knowledge. Unusually strong analytical ability and independent use of knowledge. | Empirically and theoretically precise. Clever, pointed and original discussion. High level thematic breadth of knowledge. Especially strong comparative competence. | 10 % | 8-12% |
B | Very good | Very good overview of the field of knowledge. Good analytical ability and independent use of knowledge. | Empirically and theoretically solid. High level thematic breadth of knowledge. Very good comparative competence. | 25% | 20-30% |
C | Good | Good overview of the key elements in the field. Occasional independent use of knowledge. | Empirically and/or theoretically competent. Reasonable thematic breadth of knowledge. Good comparative skills. | 30% | 24-36% |
D | Satisfactory | Overview of the key elements of knowledge missing. Little academic independence. | Empirically and/or theoretically uneven. Some thematic breadth of knowledge and comparative competence. | 25% | 20-30% |
E | Adequate | Meets the minimum requirements, but no more. Cannot use knowledge independently. | Empirically and/or theoretically unconvincing. Thematically uncertain. Little comparative competence. | 10% | 8-12% |
F | Fail | Lacking both detailed knowledge and overview. | Very little empirical and theoretical understanding. Thematically very weak. No comparative competence. | 0% | 0% |
*Note: The term "thematic" is selected as a generic term for (e.g.) - "general" knowledge of regional ethnography or intellectual history, or more specifically the subject’s central themes (gender relations, human ecology, ritual life, multiculturalism etc. – whichever are most relevant for the assessment). If the student scores unevenly in regards to the various criteria, the grade will be determined by the average.?
SUBJECT-SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA:
SPECIAL TOPICS (COURSES) AT HIGHER LEVEL (Master-level)
| Symbol | Designation | General, qualitative description of assessment criteria | Subject-specific description of evaluation criteria* | ECTS-distribution | Frame values quantitive distribution |
A | Outstanding | High level of knowledge. Unusually strong analytical ability and independent use of knowledge. | Empirically and theoretically precise. Clever, pointed and original discussion. High level thematic breadth of knowledge. Especially strong comparative competence. | 10% | 8-12% |
B | Very good | Very good overview of the field of knowledge. Good analytical ability and independent use of knowledge. | Empirically and theoretically solid. High level thematic breadth of knowledge. Very good comparative competence. | 25% | 20-30% |
C | Good | Good overview of the key elements in the field. Occasional independent use of knowledge. | Empirically and/or theoretically competent. Reasonable thematic breadth of knowledge. Good comparative skills. ? | 30% | 24-36% |
D | Satisfactory | Overview of the key elements of knowledge missing. Little academic independence. | Empirically and/or theoretically uneven. Some thematic breadth of knowledge and comparative competence. | 25% | 20-30% |
E | Adequate | Meets the minimum requirements, but no more. Cannot use knowledge independently. | Empirically and/or theoretically unconvincing. Thematically uncertain. Little comparative competence. | 10% | 8-12% |
F | Fail | Lacking both detailed knowledge and overview. | Very little empirical and theoretical understanding. Thematically very weak. No comparative competence. | 0% | 0% |
*Note: The term "thematic" is selected as a generic term for (e.g.) - "general" knowledge of regional ethnography or intellectual history, or more specifically the subject’s central themes (gender relations, human ecology, ritual life, multiculturalism etc. – whichever are most relevant for the assessment). If the student scores unevenly in regards to the various criteria, the grade will be determined by the average.?
?
SUBJECT-SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA: MASTER ASSIGNMENT
| Symbol | Designation | General, qualitative description of assessment criteria | Subject-specific description of evaluation criteria* | ECTS-distribution | Frame values quantitive distribution |
A | Outstanding | High level of knowledge. Unusually strong analytical ability and independent use of knowledge. | Empirically and theoretically precise. Clever, pointed and original discussion. High level thematic breadth of knowledge. Especially strong comparative competence. Empirical material of very high quality, which is theoretically very well integrated. | 10% | 8-12% |
B | Very good | Very good overview of the field of knowledge. Good analytical ability and independent use of knowledge. | Empirically and theoretically solid. High level thematic breadth of knowledge. Empirical material of high quality that is theoretically well integrated. Pointed and insightful discussion. | 25% | 20-30% |
C | Good | Good overview of the key elements in the field. Occasional independent use of knowledge. | Empirically and/or theoretically competent. Reasonable thematic breadth of knowledge. Good comparative skills. Empirical material of average quality discussed on an acceptable theoretical level. | 30% | 24-36% |
D | Satisfactory | Overview of the key elements of knowledge missing. Little academic independence. | Empirically and/or theoretically uneven. Some thematic breadth of knowledge and comparative competence. Empirical material of uncertain quality. Cannot carry out a systematic theoretical discussion. | 25% | 20-30% |
E | Adequate | Meets the minimum requirements, but no more. Cannot use knowledge independently. | Empirically and/or theoretically unconvincing. Thematically uncertain. Little comparative competence. Weak empirical material. Lack of theoretical discussion. | 10% | 8-12% |
F | Fail | Lacking both detailed knowledge and overview. | Very little empirical and theoretical understanding. Thematically very weak. No comparative competence. Major deficiencies in the empirical material. Failed to conduct a theoretical discussion. | 0% | 0% |
*Note: The term "thematic" is selected as a generic term for (e.g.) - "general" knowledge of regional ethnography or intellectual history, or more specifically the subject’s central themes (gender relations, human ecology, ritual life, multiculturalism etc. – whichever are most relevant for the assessment). If the student scores unevenly in regards to the various criteria, the grade will be determined by the average.?
SUBJECT-SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA WHEN THE GRADE SCALE PASS/FAIL IS USED: UNDERGRADUATE (Bachelor-level) AND HIGHER LEVEL (Master-level)
When the grade scale ‘Pass/Fail’ is used, this is an independent assessment that shall not be linked to the A-F grade scale.
? |