## Exam format This rubric is used for both the **practice exam** and the **final exam**. Students receive two empirical papers they have not previously read. Three paper sets are available, corresponding to the main disciplinary tracks in the programme: cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, and cognitive neurobiology. Students select one set. In four hours, students write an essay that reads and digests both papers, critically evaluates the work, and synthesises the findings into a coherent argument that addresses their interdisciplinary implications. The essay is graded on the Dutch 1–10 scale using the rubric below. The three criteria are weighted to reflect alignment with the exam ILO (*Synthesise research findings and explain their interdisciplinary implications*): | Criterion | Weight | |---|:---:| | Critical reading | 20% | | Synthesis | 45% | | Interdisciplinary implications | 35% | **Practice exam**: the rubric score is used to provide individual written feedback only. The practice exam is not graded. **Final exam**: the final exam is assessed on a **pass/fail** basis. A weighted score of Sufficient or above (≥5.5 on the Dutch scale) constitutes a pass. Students who do not pass may resit. --- ## Rubric | Criterion | Poor (1–4) | Insufficient (4.5–5.5) | Sufficient (6–7) | Good (7.5–8) | Excellent (8.5–10) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Critical reading (20%)** | One or both papers are misrepresented — aims, methods, or findings are described inaccurately. Critical engagement is absent; results are accepted as established facts without evaluation. | Both papers are described accurately at a surface level, but critique is superficial. Obvious limitations are noted (e.g., small sample size) without engaging with methodological assumptions, validity, or how limitations affect what the findings can support. | Both papers are accurately represented and systematically evaluated. The student identifies methodological choices, underlying assumptions, and limitations, and considers how these affect what the findings can reliably support. | All criteria for the previous level are met. Critical evaluation goes beyond individual papers — the student identifies patterns across the two, such as shared methodological assumptions or converging blind spots, and explains their implications for what can be concluded. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student evaluates what the two papers together can and cannot reliably establish — identifying cumulative limitations and explaining why certain conclusions remain uncertain even when both papers point in the same direction. | | **Synthesis (45%)** | The two papers are described separately with no attempt to connect them. The essay reads as two summaries placed side by side. | The student acknowledges both papers and notes surface similarities or differences, but connections are asserted rather than explained — findings are placed beside each other without showing how they relate, build on, or qualify each other. | The student constructs a coherent argument from both papers, explaining how the findings relate to and build upon each other. The synthesis goes beyond description — it shows why the two papers, taken together, support a particular reading of the problem. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The synthesis engages with divergence as well as convergence — where the papers agree, where they conflict or tension each other, and what those patterns mean for the argument. The student makes explicit claims about what the combined evidence supports. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The synthesis demonstrates full command of both papers as a structured whole. The argument is tightly constructed, with each element placed deliberately in relation to the other. The student draws out implications that could not have been derived from either paper alone. | | **Interdisciplinary implications (35%)** | The response remains entirely within the frame of one or both papers. No attempt is made to connect the synthesis to perspectives or questions from another discipline. | The student acknowledges that the findings may be relevant beyond the immediate field but cannot articulate this concretely. Claims about interdisciplinary relevance are generic or asserted without explanation. | The student explains how the synthesis connects to at least one other discipline — stating clearly what the findings contribute to or illuminate from another field's perspective. The connection is specific and grounded in the content of both papers. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student explains what the synthesis specifically contributes to another discipline — not just that a connection exists, but what it changes, qualifies, or illuminates. Where disciplinary perspectives create tension, the student provides a reasoned account of that tension rather than smoothing it over. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The interdisciplinary analysis is genuinely explanatory — the student shows how bringing the two papers' findings into contact with another disciplinary perspective produces an understanding that neither the papers alone nor that other discipline alone could provide. The reasoning is coherent and specific to the content of the synthesis. | --- ## Dutch grading system Grades are on a 1–10 scale; 5.5 is the minimum pass mark. Grades may be awarded to half-point precision. | Qualitative descriptor | Grade range (inclusive) | | :--- | :--- | | Poor | 1–4 | | Insufficient | 4.5–5.5 | | Sufficient | 6–7 | | Good | 7.5–8 | | Excellent | 8.5–10 | The weighted average of the three criteria is computed to produce a final grade. Where the weighted score falls between two half-point values, the grader uses their judgment based on the overall quality and coherence of the essay.