If the course is discontinued, students may request to be examined during the following two academic years.
Based on recommendation from KTH’s coordinator for disabilities, the examiner will decide how to adapt an examination for students with documented disability.
The examiner may apply another examination format when re-examining individual students.
The degree project is carried out individually or together with another student. In the latter case, the examiner should make sure that each student's effort corresponds to the requirements for an individual degree project. The degree project is presented orally and in writing in English or Swedish. A public defence and the participation in the evaluation of another degree project as well as participation in a scientific seminar in Applied Mathematics is required.
The degree project will be assessed after the learning objectives above have been met. The grade is assigned by examiner as an overall assessment after the written report has been checked for plagiarism. The degree project must pass each of the requirements.
Students who have not completed the thesis within a year may fail the course. Such a decision is taken by the examiner after consultation with the programme co-ordinator.
Fulfilment of learning objectives:
Aim 1.
Pass: The literature study is thorough Current research and development relevant to the study is presented in a clear way. The method choice is well motivated, based on scientific or best practice and evaluated vis-Ã -vis other methods. Relevant knowledge from previous courses is adequately used.
Fail: The literature study is insufficient. Connections to current research and development is missing or is inadequate. The explanation of the chosen methods, or the evaluation of these methods is inadequate. The work shows on insufficient knowledge from previous courses.
Aim 2.
Pass: The work is done independently and systematically and based on critical analysis and synthesis of relevant literature. The work shows an overall perspective. Well chosen databases and search tools are used. The need of additional knowledge is discussed.
Fail: Relevant literature is to a great extent absent, or has not been integrated in the work. The literature is not examined critically. The work does not build on previous knowledge in the area. Discussions about possible further studies is missing.
Aim 3.
Pass: Relevant complex phenomena and topics are identified in the degree project. The work clearly shows that these are well handled and analysed even if available information is limited. Adequate assessment of the topic and results is carried out.
Fail: Relevant complex phenomena, issues and topics are not formulated, handled or analysed in the degree project. The work shows a deficient overall view of the topic or the topic is unnecessarily limited to avoid the complexity of the assignment. Relevant assessments connected to the topic of the degree project are lacking.
Aim 4.
Pass: The project plan was followed. A thorough study is completed within the agreed time and with the methodology agreed upon. Possible changes in the plan or study have been approved by the supervisor. Resources and limitations in the study are clearly presented.
Fail: The work does not reach the level that was intended initially (or subsequently adjusted). Critical evaluation of the work is missing. The project plan regarding time and methodology has not been implemented.
Aim 5.
Pass: The chosen strategy is motivated and implemented so that developed and evaluated products, processes, methods, systems or technical solutions, are adapted to human needs and conditions. Consideration to relevant social aims is shown in such a way that the ability of future generations to meet their needs is not jeopardised.
Fail: Product, process, systems, method or technical solution have not been evaluated or developed in the degree project. Relevant analysis of manageability and effects on our society, environment and economy is lacking.
Aim 6.
Pass: The report is well organized, linguistically sound and coherent. The discussion is well motivated. The citations are relevant and well integrated. Both the oral presentation and defence, as well as the communication during the work demonstrate the ability to present and discuss the work and the conclusions with different parties such as employers, supervisors, teachers, researchers and students.
Fail: The contents is not systematically presented, and the text or the oral presentation is difficult to understand. The argumentation in the discussion is deficient. The citations have an unclear aim, lie too close to the original source, or are piled without clear relationship. The written report is not linguistically sound or coherent. The continuous communication or the oral presentation do not show perceptiveness, clarity or ability to discuss the work and the conclusions.
Aim 7.
Pass: The degree project shows judgement, for example ability to to explain, motivate, criticise and recommend. Relevant topic-specific assessments based on scientific reasoning or previous experience are evident in the degree project. The degree project reflects on social and ethical aspects, unless this is shown to be irrelevant.
Fail: Judgement is lacking or inadequate. The work shows an inability to place the study in a larger context. The degree project does not consider ethical and social aspects even if these are relevant to the study, alternatively an explanation of why these aspects have not been discussed is absent.
Aim 8.
Pass: The student familiarizes him/herself with the topic at hand and demonstrate the ability to be a part of the working environment where the study was performed. The student shows an ability to test, evaluate and also reject ideas and solutions in the discussions on the assignment. The student shows initiative and is open for supervision and criticism. The degree project is carried out largely independently.
Fail: Despite supervision and guidance the student does not show the ability or will to participate and be part of the working environment. The student does not come up with constructive ideas during discussions with supervisors and doe not show interest in advice and new proposals. The student does not demonstrate independent and creative work between the supervision sessions.
