What are students actually saying about Marking criteria (NSS 2018–2025)?
Students discuss Marking criteria with a strongly negative tone across cohorts and subjects. The picture is consistent: perceived clarity and consistency of criteria are pain points for most groups, with only modest variation by age, study mode or subject area.
Scope: UK NSS open-text comments tagged to Marking criteria across academic years 2018–2025.
Volume: ~13,329 comments (≈3.5% of all 385,317 comments); 100% sentiment-coded.
Overall mood: 8.4% Positive, 87.9% Negative, 3.7% Neutral (sentiment index −44.6).
What are students saying in this category?
- The tone is highly negative overall (−44.6), indicating far more negative than positive statements about how criteria are presented and applied.
- Younger students (72.7% of this category’s comments) are more negative than mature students (sentiment −46.1 vs −41.0). Similarly, part-time students are less negative than full-time (−40.7 vs −46.0).
- By ethnicity, tone is broadly negative across all groups; it is more negative among Not UK domiciled (−47.5) and Mixed (−47.4) relative to White (−44.1).
- Across major subject areas, sentiment remains net negative. Law (−47.2) and Physical sciences (−47.1) are among the most negative; Business and management (−43.6), Psychology (−44.0) and Combined/general studies (−40.6) are slightly less negative. All high-volume areas are still well below neutral.
Segment snapshots
The table below highlights where most comments sit and how tone differs for large segments.
| Segment | Share % | Sentiment idx | Positive % | Negative % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age – Young | 72.7 | −46.1 | 7.8 | 88.5 |
| Age – Mature | 25.4 | −41.0 | 9.1 | 87.0 |
| Mode – Full-time | 75.8 | −46.0 | 7.8 | 88.6 |
| Mode – Part-time | 21.8 | −40.7 | 9.1 | 86.7 |
Top subject areas by volume (share within this category):
| Subject area (CAH1) | Share % | n | Sentiment idx | Positive % | Negative % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social sciences | 11.0 | 1461 | −45.9 | 7.4 | 88.2 |
| Subjects allied to medicine | 9.6 | 1275 | −45.4 | 6.9 | 89.7 |
| Psychology | 8.4 | 1117 | −44.0 | 8.1 | 89.1 |
| Business and management | 7.8 | 1035 | −43.6 | 10.1 | 85.3 |
| Computing | 5.5 | 737 | −44.2 | 8.1 | 89.3 |
| Law | 5.2 | 695 | −47.2 | 7.2 | 89.1 |
| Engineering and technology | 5.0 | 665 | −46.6 | 8.7 | 88.3 |
| Historical, philosophical and religious studies | 4.5 | 605 | −44.1 | 9.3 | 87.3 |
Note: All figures rounded to 1 decimal for percentages and indices; counts to integers. Very small segments are not shown.
What this means in practice
Given the consistently negative tone across large cohorts and subjects, prioritise visible, consistent criteria and calibration.
- Publish annotated exemplars at key grade bands aligned to each assessment type.
- Use checklist-style rubrics with unambiguous descriptors; include weightings and common error notes.
- Release criteria early (with the brief) and hold a short Q&A or walk-through in class/online.
- Run marker calibration with a short bank of shared samples; record and publish “what we agreed” notes to students.
- Provide a brief “how your work was judged” summary with each returned grade, referencing the rubric lines ticked.
- Standardise criteria across modules where learning outcomes overlap; highlight any intentional differences up front.
- Offer a 10–15 minute feed-forward clinic before submission windows for high-volume modules.
- Track and close the loop on recurring queries about criteria (e.g., a simple FAQ linked from VLE pages).
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
- See how student sentiment on Marking criteria moves over time and by cohort, site or mode, with drill-downs from provider to school/department/programme.
- Like-for-like comparisons by CAH area and demographics (e.g., age, domicile, ethnicity, mode) to target the cohorts where tone is most negative.
- Export concise, anonymised summaries for programme teams and boards, with ready-to-use tables and year-on-year movement.
Data at a glance (2018–2025)
- Volume: ~13,329 comments on Marking criteria (≈3.5% of all comments); 100% sentiment-coded.
- Overall mood: 8.4% Positive, 87.9% Negative, 3.7% Neutral (index −44.6).
- Largest sub-groups by share: Young (72.7%), Full-time (75.8%), Female (59.9%), White (68.5%).
- All high-volume subject areas are net negative; Law and Physical sciences are among the most negative.
Subject specific insights on "marking criteria"
marking criteria + (CAH22-01-02) teacher training
Do teacher training students trust marking criteria in UK higher education?
Exploring UK teacher training students' perspectives on marking criteria and its impact on their education.
marking criteria + (CAH15-01-02) sociology
What do sociology students think about marking criteria?
A look at UK sociology students' perspectives on marking criteria.
marking criteria + (CAH25-01-03) design studies
Are design studies students getting fair and clear grades?
Explore how fair and clear marking criteria in design studies impacts student perspectives and academic integrity.
marking criteria + (CAH03-01-02) biology (non-specific)
How can biology assessments in UK higher education be fair and consistent?
Learn about the challenges UK higher education faces in assessing biology students and how to achieve fair grading.
marking criteria + (CAH02-06-03) ophthalmics
Are marking criteria fair and consistent in ophthalmic education?
Learn about the importance of fair and consistent marking in ophthalmic education from students' perspectives.
marking criteria + (CAH11-01-05) artificial intelligence
What do AI students need from marking criteria in the UK?
AI students in UK higher education spotlight issues with marking criteria, demanding fair, timely, and industry-relevant assessments.
marking criteria + (CAH02-04-07) mental health nursing
Are grading standards in environmental sciences fair and consistent?
Learn how environmental science students feel about the fairness and clarity of marking criteria in higher education.
marking criteria + (CAH20-01-02) history of art, architecture and design
Are grading standards in History of Art, Architecture and Design clear and consistent?
Learn how students perceive grading standards in art, design, and architecture, and find out suggestions for clarity and fairness in evaluations.
marking criteria + (CAH04-01-01) psychology (non-specific)
Can psychology assessments be made consistent and fair?
A guide for educators on the challenges and strategies in psychology student assessments.
marking criteria + (CAH01-01-02) medicine (non-specific)
What needs to change in medical student assessments?
This post discusses the need for reform in medical student assessment systems, highlighting challenges and proposing improvements.
marking criteria + (CAH20-01-01) history
Do history students understand how their work is marked?
This guide dives into complexities and solutions for understanding marking criteria in history studies.
marking criteria + (CAH11-01-01) computer science
Do computer science students trust marking criteria?
Exploring the impact and challenges of grading systems within computer science education.
marking criteria + (CAH02-04-02) adult nursing
Do adult nursing students understand and trust marking criteria?
A look at how adult nursing students perceive marking criteria.
marking criteria + (CAH15-02-01) economics
Are economics students getting clarity and consistency in marking?
An exploration of the variances and issues in economics marking criteria from a student perspective.
marking criteria + (CAH02-05-03) biomedical sciences (non-specific)
How do biomedical sciences students view marking criteria?
A succinct guide through the nuanced realm of biomedical sciences for students.
marking criteria + (CAH17-01-04) management studies
Do management studies students find marking criteria fair and usable?
Insights into how management studies students view marking criteria in higher education.
marking criteria + (CAH17-01-02) business studies
Do business studies students trust marking criteria?
Insights into business students' perspectives on marking criteria.
marking criteria + (CAH26-01-03) human geography
Do human geography students find marking criteria usable?
Insights into how human geography students perceive marking criteria.
marking criteria + (CAH19-01-01) English studies (non-specific)
Do English Studies students understand how their work is marked?
Insight into unique challenges and student experiences in English Studies.