Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Tezli Yüksek Lisans Diploması

ISCO 08

ISCO 08

MA programme aims at deepen students’ knowledge in comparative politics, international relations, political theory, and Turkish politics. Moreover, it aims at provide students with intellectual depth and with the necessary tools to think independently, to question and criticize, engage in collaborative work and be open-minded about alternative approaches. The Department has therefore adopted an interdisciplinary perspective and a multi-dimensional approach.The department currently offers two MA programmes: MA in Political Science and International Relations (with thesis/Tezli Yüksek Lisans) and MA in Political Science and International Relations (without thesis/Tezsiz Yüksek Lisans). The programme with thesis lasts 4 semesters: in the first two semesters the students attend classes and in the last two semesters they prepare a thesis. The programme without thesis lasts 3 semesters: students attend four classes in the first two semesters and in the third semester—beside two elective courses—students write a short research project (8.000 words).The languages of instruction in our MA programme are English and Turkish. Students must be able to understand the main ideas of complex text in the field of politics and be able to interact with a degree of fluency in both languages.

These criteria are designed to provide guidance as to typical expectations for marking. They should thus assist students in recognising the demands and expectations of exams, projects and other assignments. Nevertheless, these criteria cannot cover all the issues involved in reaching decisions about every possible piece of work submitted for assessment. Unavoidably, the final mark reflects the overall judgment of examiners about the quality of the individual piece of work. However, these criteria do provide extensive guidance as to examiners’ expectations and practices that should enable students to gain as clear as possible an idea of what is expected of their work.90% - 100%: AA (4.00/4.00)Answers demonstrate a detailed knowledge of the literature and of the variety of interactions involved, including appropriate major theories, concepts or approaches, attesting to notably extensive reading. Material has been thoroughly understood, enabling selection that ensures no significant areas or interactions are omitted. This is supported by clear and accurate references to specific literature.Description is consistently highly accurate and the account of key areas of dispute is linked to a persuasive analytical response to the question. Contextual matters are addressed thoughtfully and their significance assessed. There is thus clear evidence of a critical and self-aware engagement with the material extending into the use of material drawn from a wider knowledge of the discipline.The answer is very well structured, developing smoothly and logically, retaining focus throughout. It shows a thorough understanding of the demands of the exercise and the ability to adapt and deploy knowledge and understanding appropriately. The use of language (English or Turkish where appropriate) is free from any significant shortcomings in terms of spelling, grammar and punctuation.85% - 89%: BA (3.50/4.00)Answers show a thorough knowledge of the literature and of the variety of interactions involved, including appropriate major theories, concepts or approaches. Understanding is of a high order, resulting in the consistent selection of appropriate material with only minor digressions and no significant omissions. There are clear and accurate references to specific items of literature.Description is consistently highly accurate and the account of key areas of dispute results in a clear analysis, although some details are open top contestation. The importance of contextual matters are recognised and discussed, if not fully integrated into the analysis. This point to the development of a critical and self-aware approach to learning, including some effective and appropriate references to material drawn from other areas of the discipline.The answer is very well structured, developing smoothly and logically, retaining focus throughout. It shows a thorough understanding of the demands of the exercise and notable ability to adapt and deploy knowledge and understanding appropriately. The use of language (English or Turkish where appropriate) is free from any significant shortcomings in terms of spelling, grammar and punctuation.80% - 84%: BB (3.00/4.00)There is good knowledge of established literature and of the variety of interactions involved, drawn from a broad range of sources including several major theories, concepts or approaches. Understanding is good, with appropriately selected material dominating the answer, although the inclusion of marginal or extraneous matters occasionally distracts attention from core issues. References to the literature are accurate bur rather more general although individual authors or works are often mentioned.Description and summary is consistently accurate and the account of key areas of dispute provides a basis for an analytical response to the question. There are disputable elements or shortcomings in the argument, but these do not undermine the general thrust. Issues of context are recognised and discussed, if generally outside of the analysis. The answer shows a critical and self-aware approach to the topic.The work is well structured with a clear sense of direction and well connected sections. There are some digressions, but these do not obstruct the logic of the answer’s organisation and development. Use of language (English or Turkish where appropriate) is good, with minor failings of grammar, spelling and punctuation.75% - 79%: CB (2.50/4.00) There is a reasonable knowledge of established work and of the variety of interactions, drawing on a range of core reading addressing some major theories, concepts or approaches, although the dominance of two to three sources is noticeable. The material has been understood well, with generally appropriate selection in the answers’ response to the question, although some significant issues are glossed over or treated too briefly. References are general, at the level of schools of thought rather than specific authors and works, but they are consistently accurate.Description and summary of the material and areas of dispute is largely accurate. However, analysis is weak or inconsistently focused on the question despite the presence of elements of a plausible argument. Contextual matters receive some attention, but their significance is not recognised. There is evidence of a critical and self-aware approach to the subject, but this is in need of further development.The answer is written largely to a plan, but discrete and largely descriptive sections many dominate this. Answers can thus often be somewhat list-like in their organisations of points. Language (English or Turkish where appropriate) is clear and generally accurate, although there may be some occasional significant failings.70% - 74% - CC (2.00/4.00)Answers show knowledge of generally basic literature and of the variety of interactions involved, often dominated by textbooks and missing some major theories, concepts or approaches. Understanding of the material is acceptable, but there are some inappropriate selections and significant gaps in material included in the answer. References to the literature are general and a small number of them may be inaccurate.Description of the material and summary of dispute and debate is generally accurate, although with some errors, usually off matters of detail. This material dominates the answer, with little effort to produce an analysis of the issues highlighted by the question. Context is poorly integrated and its significance only weakly recognised, suggesting only basic recognition of the need for a critical and self-aware approach to learning.There is evidence of planning, and the work has recognisable and coherent sections, although they are only weakly connected to one another. There may be significant mistakes in the use of language (English or Turkish where appropriate), although not the extent of masking meaning.65% - 69%: DC (1.50/4.00)Answers contain significant elements of relevant knowledge about the topic, but this is reliant on a narrow range of basic sources and contains serious inaccuracies or absences. Understanding is limited, with the answer showing some appreciation for relevant and appropriate material, but also including significant quantities of irrelevant matter. There are few accurate references to the literature.There are very significant inaccuracies in the description and summary. The answer is notable for its failure to discuss disputes and debates in the literature or to develop a coherent argument throughout. Conclusions, where present, are thus highly questionable. There are few signs of recognition of the role of context, suggesting the student has failed to engage critically and in a self-aware fashion with the material.Planning is poor overall, with the answer progressing in a disjointed fashion and without connections between sections becoming apparent. The use of language (English or Turkish where appropriate) is seriously flawed, with the meaning of some sentences or sections being uncertain.60% - 64%: DD (1.00/4.00) Passing Threshold for the CourseThere is some relevant and accurate information present, but this is in a clear minority. There are few signs of reading beyond the most basic texts and even these have been poorly grasped. Understanding is thus deficient, with little in the way of appropriate material being selected. References to the literature are either absent or seriously inaccurate.Failure to produce accurate summary and description extends into a misreading of disputes and debates resulting in unsustainable analysis. The answer points to an inadequate approach to issues of context and little appreciation for an effective approach to learning.Answers in this range generally appear unplanned, resulting in almost random collections of points, bits of information and scraps of argument. The use of language may also be consistently very poor with large numbers of errors.50% - 59%: FD (0.50/4.00) FailThere is very little accurate knowledge about the topic. The understanding is based on a single text if any. Negligible references to literature. The examples provided and the cases used may be inappropriate entirely.The argument lacks overall planning and coherence, thus the work largely lacks any detectable conclusions or findings that would help to answer the given question.The use of language may have errors to the extent of preventing the examiner from comprehending the student’s trail of thought. 0% - 49%: FF (0.00/4.00) Clear FailAnswers in this range are almost always very short, sometimes only a handful sentences, and convey wholly inadequate levels of knowledge and understanding and skills necessary for undergraduate work.

Candidates are required to hold a bachelor's degree in related topics and obtain a B1 score in an international recognised exam.

Graduates are mainly employed as academic, experts and consultants in public and private institutions, and as qualified-managers in the private sector.

Qualification is valid indefinetely.