Peer assessment has been studied in various situations and actively pursued as a means by which students are given more control over their learning and assessment achievement. This study investigated the reliability of staff and student assessments in two oral presentations with limited feedback for a school-based thesis course in engineering where the different disciplines ran their own assessment. Staff scores were generally found to be more reliable than student scores, but it was not consistent. The engineering disciplines displayed widely varying differences between the staff and student scores. A large variation in reliability was found for the different disciplines making it difficult to reconcile to a standard school-based overall grading scheme for the course when the reliability of marking was low. The results also showed that the average scores for oral presentations are generally much higher than for written examinations, based on the grade point average. Future research will need to investigate how best to develop a consistent assessment framework for oral presentations and moderation of scores for consistency, particularly for large classes where assessment are done by different groups of staff and students and collated into a single set of marks for the class. (Contains 5 tables and 5 figures.)