The MSc programme contains an element of continuous assessment, in the form of four assessed essays (one for each taught module). Essay questions (based on material covered in the programme) are circulated at the beginning of the academic year and are to be submitted in December, March and April. All essays will be double marked (independently) by the most relevant seminar coordinator & the MSc Programme Tutor and the latter will send (via email) each student a mark sheet with some brief individual feedback based on the comments of the two markers.

The purpose of essays is to assess the student's ability to review and synthesise the literature relevant to a question, and to analyse this literature critically in order to address the question. Additional credit is given for drawing on a wider range of relevant material, for clarity and elegance of argument and for originality. In addition, coursework gives a very valuable opportunity to assess each student's progress, and to identify any areas of weakness which might need to be worked on before the examinations and dissertation are tackled. Some students come to the programme with either little experience of formal essay writing, or little experience of writing essays in English, and they in particular need practice and sometimes extra tutorial help.

Length & Format of essays

Essays should be double-spaced, and no longer than 2500 words, including everything except an appendix (if used). The word-count should be stated on a front sheet (see submission details below). Essays should be word-processed and the format should follow the International Journal of Psychoanalysis’ (IJPA) Notes for Contributors, a photocopy of which is on the notice board outside Room 539. A requirement you should note is that references should be given fully and in standard format. Freud references should preferably be to the Standard Edition (copies are available in the main office, in the Institute of Psychoanalysis Library, Senate House Library and also online via PEPWeb), and the date cited the original publication date (in round brackets in the S.E.).

It is expected that these essays will be better presented and worded than an essay written in exam conditions, although the marking scheme is the same. They should therefore be word processed in at least 11 point font, with attention paid to spelling, grammar and clarity of expression. In general, what is needed is: (a) a clear description of the literature relevant to the question, (b) giving an answer to the question (i.e. do not just reproduce relevant material without addressing the actual question asked), (c) developing a considered argument, in relation to the question. You can introduce wider reading than has been recommended by the unit teachers, but remember that the course is primarily about psychoanalytic theory, so do not let answers be dominated by (for example) literary criticism, developmental psychology, sociology, or clinical material.

Other suggestions you might wish to consider are:

The opening and concluding paragraphs make most impact. Refrain from introducing the essay with sweeping statements about the area; simply introduce the context and arguments that you will be addressing. Perhaps include a concluding paragraph, which draws out the most important themes discussed.
Selectivity is important. Do not be tempted to write down everything there is to know about the topic: answers should mainly reflect the question as stated. Justify your choice of particular important aspects at the beginning, while at the same time making it clear you are aware of other possibilities.
Essays that are broken down into sections, with headings, are often easier to read.
You should be demonstrating evaluative and critical thinking in your review of the literature and your discussion of this.
Arguments should state their evidence (which can include a basis in theoretical reasoning), or if opinions, this should be clear.
Examples from published clinical material (either your own, or in the relevant literature), are acceptable where pertinent to a theoretical point.

Submitting Essays

You should hand in two paper copies and an emailed copy of each essay to the MSc Programme Administrator. You should have a front sheet that states the Module number and title, the essay title and question number, the word count, the date, and your academic code. Please note that your name should not appear. This is to ensure that the marking can remain blind.

Submission deadlines

Essay 1 Friday 18th December 2009
Essay 2 and Essay 3 - Friday 26th March 2010
Essay 4 – Friday 28th May 2010

On the date of submission essays must be handed in to the main office (539) by 5.00pm. You should hand in two paper copies and send an emailedcopy to the MSc Programme Administrator (sophie.bennett@ucl.ac.uk). You should have a front sheet that states the module number and title, the essay title and question number, the word count, the date, and your academic code (this will be emailed to you). Please note that your name should not appear. This is to ensure that the marking can remain blind.

Late submission penalties

An email copy must be sent to the MSc Programme Administrator by midnight on the day of submission.

Any work submitted after this deadline will immediately incur a penalty of 5% deducted from the final mark.

After that an additional 1% will be deducted per day for the next 7 days.

Work submitted 7 days after the deadline will automatically receive a FAIL.

Extensions

Under exceptional circumstances, an extension to the date by which work must be handed in can be negotiated. This should be requested in advance, and will normally be given in the case of serious illness (with medical certificate) or major life-events, etc. (but NOT because of predictable pressure of work or minor ailments). All extensions must be requested from Ruth McCall or Mary Target (or, should they be absent, then the Chair of the Board of Examiners, Professor Fonagy). Students may negotiate an extension of up to one week. Any proposals for a longer extension should be made in writing to the Chair of the Board of Examiners, and will require evidence of truly exceptional circumstances.

Word Count Penalties

The 2500 words includes everything (including title page, references/footnotes and bibliography), except an appendix.

2501-2999 - deduction of 5% off your mark
3000 words and over – deduction of 10% off your mark
Less than 2000 words – deduction of 10% off your mark.

These rather rigid rules about submission dates, length of essay, and so on are essential to ensure that the system works as fairly as possible for all students. Just as in an examination it would be unfair to allow one student half an hour of extra time, unless he or she had a proven disability, it is unfair to allow a longer piece of work, or a longer time to certain individuals, without clear evidence that they had been unavoidably deprived of the time available to their colleagues.

Marking Proceedures

The marking scheme for all assessed elements is a 50% pass mark; over 70% is a Distinction (equivalent to 1st class for an undergraduate degree).

All essays will be double marked (independently) by the most relevant seminar coordinator & an internal marker, using the marking scheme below (i.e. 50% is the bottom of the pass range, over 70% is a Distinction). If the difference between the two marks is six points or less, the final mark will be the average of the two marks; rounded upwards (e.g. initial marks of 60 and 65 will give a final mark of 63). In cases where the difference between markers is more than six points, the final mark will be determined either by negotiation between the two markers, or by a third marker, who will not be informed of the first two marks; a third marker will always be used if one or more marks falls below the pass standard of 50%. When three marks are obtained, the final mark awarded will be the median of the three marks (e.g. if initial marks of 45, 54 and 57 are obtained, the final mark awarded will be 54). Only the final mark is made available to students on the mark sheet. If it were to happen that no agreement could be reached, the work would be referred to the Visiting Examiner, and the decision of the Board of Examiners would be final.

On completion of the marking process Ruth McCall will send students (via email) a mark sheet with brief individual feedback based on the combined comments of the markers.

lease note that all essay marks, even though fed back to the student so that he/she can improve subsequent work, are provisional until confirmed by the Board of Examiners and subsequently formally notified to each student by UCL (a short time after the Exam Board in late September). The Visiting Examiner will always read a sample of the essays for discussion at the Exam Board in late September to assess the consistency of the marking.

At present, the guidelines given to the essay markers are as follows:

As a general rule: a student can bring any relevant material, regardless of whether it has been specifically taught in the course syllabus. It is important however that the overall subject and content of the essay is within the area of psychoanalytic theory. A more complex or difficult topic should be marked somewhat more leniently than a straightforward one.

Distinction (70%-100%)

Work which shows a high level of awareness and understanding of psychoanalytic theory. It shows convincing evidence of capacity to present an argument and a good appraisal of the relevant literature. The work is on the whole presented clearly, succinctly, and coherently, and there is a well-developed and at least partly original line of argument.

2:1 (60- 69%)

The work is generally well-organised and presented. It shows a capacity to critically evaluate issues, and addresses a question intelligently, with good knowledge of the literature. However, it is not worthy of a distinction mark; this may be for many reasons, for instance because there is too little development of a line of argument, or there is very little evidence of originality, or the expression and presentation are careless in spite of other impressive aspects. However, the essay is generally a good and solid piece of work by a student who appears to adequately understand what they are writing about.

2:2 (50- 59%)

The work addresses the issue chosen, but in a limited way. The material presented may show reasonable familiarity with the issues and general knowledge base, but it has significant flaws. For example, the student may lack knowledge or show misunderstanding of some clearly relevant theory, or fail to appreciate some important aspects of theoretical approaches, he or she may have good knowledge but show problems in presenting a coherent review or developing any line of argument. The reader may have the impression that the student has summarised an area without any real feeling for the important issues.

Refer: one week (grade withheld until corrections are made)

The work is generally adequate and would be of a high enough standard to pass, but there are errors in presentation, such as poor referencing, several spelling errors, missed words, etc. The student has one week to re-submit a corrected version for consideration, and this revision is intended to help the student to learn how to present their work more effectively. A re-written piece of work will either pass or fail when it is re-submitted. It will not be 'referred' a second time. Both markers will award a provisional mark to the work, assuming that the required corrections are made satisfactorily, but the final mark will be withheld until re-submission. If the work is then not of a satisfactory standard, it will therefore fail instead of obtaining the provisional mark.

Fail (final mark below 50%)

The answer is clearly too heavily flawed to pass. There may be clear plagiarism, an argument which cannot be followed, a review of the literature which is very inadequate or an essay which does little justice to its subject. The student would fail if the essay were substantially late in submission, without a strong reason accepted in advance by programme staff. The Programme Tutor will discuss the reasons for the failure with the student.

Back to Top

This page last modified 7 November, 2009 by Sophie Bennett

Sigmund Freud

Anna Freud

Melanie Klein

Donald Winnicott

Psychoanalysis Unit - Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology - University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT