Master Thesis: Evaluation and Awarding Marks

Departement Environmental Sciences
ETH Zentrum CHN H 41
CH-8092 Zürich
Students administration office
Opening hours during semester:
Mo – Th 2 – 4 pm
Universitätsstrasse 8
Tel. +41-44-632 25 23
Fax +41-44-632 13 09
secretariat@env.ethz.ch
Master Thesis: Evaluation and Awarding Marks
Name, first name ............................................................................................................................................................................................
Topic ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Name of main supervisor ............................................................................................................................................................................
Evaluation (for criteria cf. back of this sheet)
The Master thesis will be assessed by the main supervisor and separately by at least one other person
(usually the tutor). The names of the examiners will be made known to the Masters candidate when work
on the thesis begins. If the thesis is awarded the final grade 6, the main supervisor must hand in a copy of
the thesis as well as a written report.
Mark
Independent scientific thinking/
originality
Person 1 Person 2 Person 3
Name: ............................. ............................. .............................
Mark
Scientific know-how
Mark
Logic of the structure,
scientific argumentation
Mark
Form and presentation
Mark
Work process
Grade Mean of the marks for
all these categories
Final grade
(average of the mean grades rounded off to a quarter)
In agreement with the main supervisor an excellent Master thesis can be published by E-Collection, see
link: http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/
Date ..................................... Signature of the main supervisor ........................................................................................
This form will be sent to the students administration office (Studiensekretariat) together with a copy of the
title-page of the thesis.

Master Thesis: Guidelines for Evaluation and Awarding Marks
Each Master thesis will be assessed by at least two persons (cf. evaluation on front page). The examiners will
evaluate the Master thesis in accordance with the following criteria and guidelines. The final grade will be
awarded after a discussion between the examiners.
Crit eria
The following questions pertaining to the individual criteria are not final and can vary in importance
depending on the type of thesis.
1. Independent scientific thinking /originality
• Does the candidate use and develop original ideas?
• Are known ideas interwoven in a new way?
• Are the core findings presented in clear statements?
• Does the thesis incorporate critical appraisal?
• Are the possibilities and limitations of the applied method discussed?
2. Scientific know-how
• Does the candidate show sufficient familiarity with current knowledge (literature, experiments)?
• Is reference made to gaps in knowledge, based on an analysis of literature?
• Are the methods and techniques used properly described?
• Are the methods adopted appropriate to the subject matter?
• Has the research (field work, collecting data, experiments, models, etc.) been carried out carefully and
adequately?
• Have the results been sufficiently tested by statistical analyses?
3. Logic of the structure, scientific argumentation
• Is the exposition of the topic clear, are the aims logically stated?
• Does the thesis include clearly formulated hypotheses?
• Does the structure of the thesis show a logical approach to the topic?
• Are the results of the research and conclusions clearly and logically presented?
• Have the central questions been answered?
• Is a comparison made between the results and published data? Are the results placed in a broader
context?
• Are generalisations supported by facts?
• Are the facts clearly distinguishable from hypotheses and suppositions?
• Are issues mentioned that have not been dealt with?
• Are proposals made for subsequent research projects?
4. Form and presentation
• Have the formal requirements for diagrams, tables, literary sources etc. been met?
• Is there a comprehensive, informative summary?
• Is the text scientifically correct, clearly understandable and in a grammatically sound language?
• Is the layout attractive for readers?
5. Work process
• Does the candidate display discernible keenness to tackle the task?
• Has the candidate acquired appropriate knowledge?
• Has the research been carried out independently?
• Has critical appraisal been successfully incorporated?
Aw arding Mar ks
Marks or grades will be awarded on the following principles:
- excellent, far above average, among the best 10% (grade 6)
- very good, above average, only minor flaws (5.5)
- good, well within average, certain flaws (5)
- satisfactory, below average, several flaws (4.5)
- barely satisfactory, below average, obvious flaws (4)
- unsatisfactory, well below average, serious flaws (3)
The candidate is entitled to a discussion with the examiners or to a written report explaining the awarded
marks.
D-UWIS Guidelines for Evaluation and Awarding Marks, July 2007