__

__
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME OFFICE
INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY
KARDINAAL MERCIERPLEIN, 2
B-3000 LEUVEN
BELGIUM



MA Thesis Summary
2013-2014
MA Thesis Requirements, Defence, Evaluation Criteria and Grading Scale
(http://hiw.kuleuven.be/eng/programmes/mathesis.html )


1) MAThesis Contents Requirements
In her/his MA thesis the student should prove that s/he is able to:
formulate a well-described and well-conceived philosophical inquiry, and to elaborate on the work
of a philosopher, or on a social, scientific and philosophical question
create a defensible research method
trace the literature and sources that are relevant for the aim of the thesis, read them accurately and
interpret them
synthesise, express and evaluate the concerned views
develop a critical and individual point of view in regard to the question at hand
draw a sound conclusion from the thesis statement, literature and analysis of the question at hand

2) MAThesis Form Requirements
The MA thesis must include the following:
title page (please use the template)
table of contents
bibliography
abstract of one A4 page (max. 3500 characters), included at the end of the thesis
The MA thesis should be around 20,000 words long (minimum 18,000 and maximum 22,000
words) - not including the table of contents, bibliography, footnotes or endnotes and abstract, typed
and 1.5 spaced. The word count has be indicated at the end of the abstract and the word count
limits have to be respected. The abstract has to be written as a summary of the thesis for non-
specialised public. The recommended font is Times New Roman 12pt and the recommended
format is A4. The thesis can be printed on single or double-sided pages. The MA thesis must be
written in correct English, and contain a coherent system of footnotes or endnotes.
The Form Requirements set out above have to be strictly observed! The MA Thesis which
does not fulfil one of these requirements will not be accepted for submission!
2
__
__

PAGE NO
.
.
,
Before the submission deadline the student hands in three printed and bound copies of the thesis at
the student secretariat of the Institute of Philosophy and s/he also submits an electronic copy of
her/his thesis as a pdf file, together with the metadata form in Toledo. The student also uploads the
thesis electronically via Toledo in Turnitin (software system for plagiarism check).

3) MAThesis Reporting Requirements
The following forms have to be submitted as part of Masters Thesis requirement. The deadlines for
submission must be strictly observed. All forms have to be signed by the supervisor. The student
submits one copy of each form to the sueprvisor, one copy to the Office of the International
Programme and s/he should also keep a copy. All forms can be also downloaded at
http://hiw.kuleuven.be/eng/programmes/mathesis.html .
15 November 2013 the student submits to the Office of the International Programme one
copy of the Thesis Outline. The outline must be signed by the thesis supervisor and it must
include a title and brief description of the thesis (max. 1 A4 page), essential bibliography (max.
1 A4 page), and a provisional table of contents, as well as the students name, e-mail address
and indication of which enrolment of the student for the thesis it is. The student submits the
second copy of the outline to the supervisor.
15 February 2014 the student submits to the Office of the International Programme one copy
of the 1st progress report (max. 1 A4 page). The report must be signed by the supervisor. The
student submits the second copy of the report to the supervisor.
25 April 2014 the student submits to the Office of the International Programme the 2nd
progress report (max. 1 A4 page) where the student also indicates in which examination
session s/he is planning to submit the thesis. The report must be signed by the supervisor. The
student submits the second copy of the report to the supervisor.
In order to defend the thesis in the June examination session and receive the feedback of the
supervisor on time before submission, the student has to submit to the supervisor the final draft of the
thesis by 10 May 2014. For a defence in the September examination session, the student submits the
final draft of the thesis on a date agreed upon with the supervisor but the student should keep in mind
that the supervisor may not be available for feedback for a period in July and/or August.

4) Defence
Defence serves as an interaction platform between the student, the supervisor and the readers
where the student has a chance to present her/his research, explain her/his methods, account for
3
__
__

PAGE NO
.
.
,
her/his choices and if need be defend her/his standpoints and the supervisor and the readers have
a chance to ask questions and/or clarifications with regard to the choice of literature, research
method, standpoints or particular passages, and give feedback.
Defence takes 30-40 min. and it is organised as follows:
o preliminary discussion of the jury members (the student is not present)
o 5 students presentation of her/his research: powerpoint or other technical tools are not
allowed; timing has to be strictly respected
o 15-20 for feedback and questions,
o 5 for discussion/deliberation of the jury members (the student is not present)
The supervisor opens the discussion and s/he also acts as a moderator.
The student is allowed to bring a copy of her/his thesis - with notes - to the defence, keeping in
mind though that s/he will not have time to look for or read through individual passags unless
explicity asked for.
Language used at the defence is English.

5) Evaluation Criteria
The thesis is evaluated by a jury that consists of 3 members the supervisor and two readers. On
the basis of the quality of the thesis text and of the defence, the jury members each give a grade
(on a scale of 20); the three grades are averaged for the final grade.
The criteria listed below are taken into account in the evaluation of the thesis. However, the
evaluation is largely based on the evaluation of the written text (see the content and form criteria).
The evaluation of realisation, given by the supervisor, serves as a corrective factor with regard to
the evaluation of the written text. Defence can be also considered as a corrective factor but the
weight of defence in the end evaluation is limited.

CONTENT:
The student has formed a welldefined research question and s/he situates the relevance of her/his
Masters thesis within a broader philosophical context.
The student has made a judicious selection (showing intelligence and judgment)of the (primary and
secondary) literature.
The student has thoroughly analysed and correctly interpreted the consulted sources.
The student has given an accurate account of status quaestionis.
The student has thorough knowledge and understanding of the subject.
The student has used a well-defined research method appropriate to the subject-matter.
The student has clearly and correctly used the philosophical terminology.
The philosophical argumentation and the structure of arguments is of good quality.
4
__
__

PAGE NO
.
.
,
The student has made the appropriate conclusions on the basis of the problem defined, the
literature analysed and her/his own arguments.
The student has her/his own, well-supported standpoint.
The student clearly differentiates between her/his ideas and the ideas of others.

FORM :
The thesis is logically and evenly structured (the choice of titles, division into chapters, paragraphs,
table of contents, page numbers, etc.).
The thesis is written in an academic style.
The student has used a coherent system of footnotes and references.
The language used is correct, fluent and without mistakes (grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.).

REALISATION:
The student has worked independently and has shown initiative and creativity in the realisation of
the Masters thesis.
The student has managed to efficiently organise her/his research. The communication with the
supervisor has been without problems and the student has met her/his commitments.

DEFENCE:
The student is capable of presenting the problem, arguments and conclusions in a concise and
clear way.
The student is capable of accounting for the choice of sources and methodology.
The student is capable of defending her/his views.
The student is capable of correctly interpreting the questions and criticism of the jury and s/he is
able to formulate relevant and well-structured answers.

6) Grading Scale
18-20 A+ Excellent:
high distinction, work of excellent quality
The student has demonstrated a high level of competence with respect to the criteria
listed above.
16-17 A Outstanding:
work of very good quality and well above average
The student has demonstrated more than an adequate level of competence with
respect to the criteria listed above.
15 A- Very Good:
distinction, work of good quality
The student has demonstrated an adequate level of competence with respect to the
criteria listed above.
14 B+ Good:
5
__
__

PAGE NO
.
.
,
generally competent work of quality
The student has demonstrated a certain level of competence with respect to the
criteria listed above.
13 B Satisfactory:
fair but with some shortcomings
The student has demonstrated more than a minimum level of competence with
respect to the criteria listed above.
12 C+

Sufficient:
fair but with shortcomings
The student has demonstrated a minimum level of competence with respect to the
criteria listed above.
11 C

Barely Sufficient:
performance meets the minimal criteria
The student has barely demonstrated any level of competence with respect to the
criteria listed above.
10 D Barely Sufficient:
performance just meets the minimal criteria
The student has barely demonstrated any level of competence with respect to the
criteria listed above.
8-9 F Insufficient:
some more work is required to obtain a passing grade
The student has not demonstrated a sufficient level of competence with respect to the
criteria listed above.
6-7

F Very Insufficient:
more work is required to obtain a passing grade
The student has demonstrated a lack of competence with respect to the criteria listed
above.
0-5 F Totally Insufficient:
considerable further work is required to obtain a passing grade
The student has demonstrated a significant lack of competence with respect to the
criteria listed above.