Lincoln Law School Marking Scheme Class Marking Range First Class 1st 95 85 78 Primary Descriptor 100 Exceptional 90 Outstanding Upper Second Class 2:1 75 72 High 2:1 - 68 Mid 2:1 - 65 Low 2:1 - 62 Lower Second Class 2:2 High 2:2 - 58 Mid 2:2 - 55 Low 2:2 - 52 High 3rd - 48 Third Class Mid 3rd - 45 Low 3rd - 42 35 38 Fail 20 30 Clear Fail 0 10 Excellent Good to Very Good Satisfactory Achieves Threshold for Honours level work Marginal Fail Absolute Fail Qualitative Descriptors Very extensive and comprehensive knowledge and understanding. Incisive critical evaluation. An impressive grasp of theory and highly original insight. Complete command of subject. Exceptional research and exemplary approach to legal writing. Work has elements of originality with evidence of independent analytical thinking. Shows some creative or innovative insight into the area. Deep understanding and insight. Extensive background research. Accurate, detailed wider knowledge and excellent understanding, including where appropriate of theory. Demonstrates a critical appreciation of relevant academic theories. Clear, logical, coherent structure, well-signposted and thorough. Strong evidence of relevant background reading with extensive, appropriate authorities supporting legal reasoning. Critical awareness of current problems. At top of range, consistently analytical with robust arguments. Shows detailed knowledge. Work shows some critical analysis and demonstrates good understanding. Coherent structure and argument. Clear communication. Question clearly addressed. Evidence of research beyond prescribed sources. At top of range, shows clear attempt at critical evaluation, as well as beginning to be aware of the wider context. At bottom of range, there may be a small number of very minor omissions or inaccuracies. Shows reasonable knowledge with no major misunderstanding but may contain some omissions, inaccuracies or lack of detail. Work reasonably well structured but likely to be descriptive with limited analysis. Statements are supported but arguments likely to be in broad terms and may lack coherence or address key points only. May offer one-sided solutions with limited problem solving. May be little evidence of further reading beyond prescribed materials. More frequent omissions at bottom of range, weakness in presentation and communication. Descriptive, basic knowledge showing some grasp of the topic but likely to include omissions and misconceptions of key areas of knowledge. Likely to be several factual errors, weak problem- solving or lack of convincing legal reasoning. Structure may not be logical and arguments may lack coherence or have poor structure. Supporting authorities sparsely used. Limited evidence of further reading, may be over-reliant on course materials. May fail to address question as a whole. At top of range, should only include a few omissions and occasional minor misconceptions. At bottom of range, likely to include major omissions with few ideas/arguments and errors in logic. Significant misconceptions or errors, lacks structure and/or logical argument. Vague or uncritical thinking. Lacks relevant supporting authorities. At top end, demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic, making a real attempt to answer it. At bottom end of range, shows a basic awareness of some aspects of