Should unis change their degree classifications?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by DarkWhite
I wrote the NUS' policy on this proposal, which says that they're neutral on it (was difficult to consult students on), but against it if certain conditions aren't met.
There is a fair case for the system needing to change. It was designed during a time when very few students attended university, and clearly isn't great for upscaling to a time when 40-50% of school leavers do. Employers do say it's difficult to distinguish between candidates, particularly with the large number of 2:1s, it's not as well recognised internationally where GPAs are more the norm, and it has resulted in lots of graduate recruiters simply using it as a filter (must have 2:1, but what's the difference between 58 and 61% in real terms?). There is far more to university and 'employability' than marks, but they are certainly a factor.
The proposal which has been put forward sucks. It uses a scale of 0-4.25 unlike any other GPA in the world. Marking would be in grades (A+, A, D, F, etc) which are discrete, then converted to a GPA which is continuous. Particularly for STEM subjects, you're going to lose valuable data. Grades in one subject could correspond to something different in another, and similarly between universities, making it extremely difficult to compare them like for like, effectively removing a lot of the benefits of having a national standardised system with appropriate local flexibilities. It's highly likely that anything above say 80% would result in no better a GPA, as the top grade of A+ would represent say 78-100%, effectively punishing students who do extremely well in particular areas.
A psychometrician a few months back proposed to me that the only way to please people would be to get rid of the grades, GPAs, classifications, and just give people a mark of 0-100%. Whilst I tend to agree, it could have mental health connotations with students thinking every single mark counts, which it just about would.
There is something in this, changing the system, but the ill-thought and hashed together GPA proposal has been a joke.
Instead, I think they should first research students' motivations to learn, to better understand what the advantages and disadvantages of various marking and grading systems are, including the status quo, before proposing something like a US GPA given a UK twist. I imagine the conclusion will be that marking and grading isn't the best way to motivate students or to help employers find their ideal graduate employees.
To put it more formally:
There is a fair case for the system needing to change. It was designed during a time when very few students attended university, and clearly isn't great for upscaling to a time when 40-50% of school leavers do. Employers do say it's difficult to distinguish between candidates, particularly with the large number of 2:1s, it's not as well recognised internationally where GPAs are more the norm, and it has resulted in lots of graduate recruiters simply using it as a filter (must have 2:1, but what's the difference between 58 and 61% in real terms?). There is far more to university and 'employability' than marks, but they are certainly a factor.
The proposal which has been put forward sucks. It uses a scale of 0-4.25 unlike any other GPA in the world. Marking would be in grades (A+, A, D, F, etc) which are discrete, then converted to a GPA which is continuous. Particularly for STEM subjects, you're going to lose valuable data. Grades in one subject could correspond to something different in another, and similarly between universities, making it extremely difficult to compare them like for like, effectively removing a lot of the benefits of having a national standardised system with appropriate local flexibilities. It's highly likely that anything above say 80% would result in no better a GPA, as the top grade of A+ would represent say 78-100%, effectively punishing students who do extremely well in particular areas.
A psychometrician a few months back proposed to me that the only way to please people would be to get rid of the grades, GPAs, classifications, and just give people a mark of 0-100%. Whilst I tend to agree, it could have mental health connotations with students thinking every single mark counts, which it just about would.
There is something in this, changing the system, but the ill-thought and hashed together GPA proposal has been a joke.
Instead, I think they should first research students' motivations to learn, to better understand what the advantages and disadvantages of various marking and grading systems are, including the status quo, before proposing something like a US GPA given a UK twist. I imagine the conclusion will be that marking and grading isn't the best way to motivate students or to help employers find their ideal graduate employees.
To put it more formally:
Spoiler
You're exactly why nobody cares about the NUS and nobody listens to the NUS. If this is what you're coming up with from a full conference I dread to think what your degrees are going to be like.
The sole problem here, which you have completely failed to recognise isn't the degree classification system at all, and some of the points you've made are just utterly ludicrous, particularly ones that you have blatantly painted without any regard to trivialising mental health issues associated with exams. It really smacks of the fact that you've had a list of issues to bring in, and you've brutally forced them to fit the bill here, mostly at the detriment of the policy.
What you've resolved, at the end of the day is political rubbish. You've pretty much rewritten your "conference believes" points and watered them down to resolve something a child could do in about 10 minutes. To put this bluntly, you've said a load of waffle without actually saying any key points at all.
In all, this is exactly why nobody listens to the NUS, and as long as we have a national student union who cumulatively have less than -1 brain cells we will continue to see the government walk over the students of this country, raising fees, messing about with A levels and decreasing the quality of our education.
The problem with the system is that we have this situation where grade inflation has resulted from under-supply and over-demand of high quality education. This will continue and happen again and again whatever system is placed in until there is some standardised national testing for universities, OR people have to face the fact that actually, it doesn't matter what degree you get, but where you got it from.
Original post by Joinedup
that's not a valid criticism for essay questions and coursework. the percentages are basically phony values created by the marker to correspond to the band they judge the work belongs in.
I don't mark an essay or coursework that way, although some may. I give a percentage mark based on its quality.
Anyway, the point is moot because the proposal is about changing the degree classification system, which is based on averaging the marks from individual sub-courses (given in percentages) into categories, not judging the overall band the candidate belongs in.
The vast majority of people on graduation are looking to go into the job market where quite frankly most employers are looking for other things as well as degree classification and are wanting other factors as well. They want to see what other work experience and internships you have and are probably more interested in the subject of your dissertation as opposed to what mark you got for it.
An exception here might be some big wigs on the board of "SnobsRUs Ltd" who decide that it will look good to only employ A+++++++++++++++++ graduates. Problem there is that people who perform well in academia don't always perform very well in the work place and can often be lacking in people, organisational and common sense skills.
The current system at least looks a bit professional whereas A, B, C etc looks a bit juvenile and schoolish.
An exception here might be some big wigs on the board of "SnobsRUs Ltd" who decide that it will look good to only employ A+++++++++++++++++ graduates. Problem there is that people who perform well in academia don't always perform very well in the work place and can often be lacking in people, organisational and common sense skills.
The current system at least looks a bit professional whereas A, B, C etc looks a bit juvenile and schoolish.
Original post by chazwomaq
I don't mark an essay or coursework that way, although some may. I give a percentage mark based on its quality.
Anyway, the point is moot because the proposal is about changing the degree classification system, which is based on averaging the marks from individual sub-courses (given in percentages) into categories, not judging the overall band the candidate belongs in.
Anyway, the point is moot because the proposal is about changing the degree classification system, which is based on averaging the marks from individual sub-courses (given in percentages) into categories, not judging the overall band the candidate belongs in.
alright, I believe you.
Module marks are already given as A+,A,A-,B+ in some places. Imo it seems more easily justified than percentages where assessment isn't right/wrong q&a exams.
yeah you still need to average up to come out with an overall classification (practice differs here between institutions) so it's not a reason to preserve the current system.
coming out with an overall %age seems like the pursuit of spurious precision.
Foreigners are still going to be confused about 70% being 'Very good'.
Original post by Folion
The vast majority of people on graduation are looking to go into the job market where quite frankly most employers are looking for other things as well as degree classification and are wanting other factors as well. They want to see what other work experience and internships you have and are probably more interested in the subject of your dissertation as opposed to what mark you got for it.
An exception here might be some big wigs on the board of "SnobsRUs Ltd" who decide that it will look good to only employ A+++++++++++++++++ graduates. Problem there is that people who perform well in academia don't always perform very well in the work place and can often be lacking in people, organisational and common sense skills.
The current system at least looks a bit professional whereas A, B, C etc looks a bit juvenile and schoolish.
An exception here might be some big wigs on the board of "SnobsRUs Ltd" who decide that it will look good to only employ A+++++++++++++++++ graduates. Problem there is that people who perform well in academia don't always perform very well in the work place and can often be lacking in people, organisational and common sense skills.
The current system at least looks a bit professional whereas A, B, C etc looks a bit juvenile and schoolish.
well only cos we're accustomed to abc at school and 1, 2.1, 2.2 at uni.
There's other information that could be usefully conveyed such as consistency of module marks... But then would that penalise the student who suffered a terrible, grade destroying personal disaster and fought back to achieve a decent overall score?
Is it really the unis job to make it easier for the delboy recruiters to eliminate cv's? (probably a silly question these days)
This would be an improvement, not necessarily a solution, solely because to the outside world any sap can get a 2:1. A smart person who excelled in their field can have a 2:1 just as much as an irresponsible alcoholic who rushes all their essays 8 hours before or even after deadline.
Original post by ozzyoscy
This would be an improvement, not necessarily a solution, solely because to the outside world any sap can get a 2:1. A smart person who excelled in their field can have a 2:1 just as much as an irresponsible alcoholic who rushes all their essays 8 hours before or even after deadline.
yeah late marking varies a lot too. Afaik at some places you could miss every deadline and still come out with a decent final classification if you played the system right. Other places you're instantly capped at a pass / 40% for lateness.
If they change it, why not at least replace it with a system with a similar appearance. i.e.
85-100% First
80-84% 2.1.1
75-79% 2.1.2
70-74% 2.1.3
65-69% 2.2.1
60-64% 2.2.2
55-59% 2.2.3
50-54% 3.0.0
49% or less is a fail.
This keeps the system clear and makes it more accurate, it also raises the bar slightly.
85-100% First
80-84% 2.1.1
75-79% 2.1.2
70-74% 2.1.3
65-69% 2.2.1
60-64% 2.2.2
55-59% 2.2.3
50-54% 3.0.0
49% or less is a fail.
This keeps the system clear and makes it more accurate, it also raises the bar slightly.
Original post by MrEFeynman
If they change it, why not at least replace it with a system with a similar appearance. i.e.
85-100% First
80-84% 2.1.1
75-79% 2.1.2
70-74% 2.1.3
65-69% 2.2.1
60-64% 2.2.2
55-59% 2.2.3
50-54% 3.0.0
49% or less is a fail.
This keeps the system clear and makes it more accurate, it also raises the bar slightly.
85-100% First
80-84% 2.1.1
75-79% 2.1.2
70-74% 2.1.3
65-69% 2.2.1
60-64% 2.2.2
55-59% 2.2.3
50-54% 3.0.0
49% or less is a fail.
This keeps the system clear and makes it more accurate, it also raises the bar slightly.
Letters are easier to figure, though in your example they should probably merge a few boundaries, and we're back to the start. From my limited experience, they should just do something about the 2:1.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
Academic staff don't have the time/inclination/rigorous enough criteria to mark things that precisely. How do you decide if an essay is worth 62, 65 or 68? It would lead to a slew of appeals and generally make life harder for everyone involved.
Really? I thought it was the norm to get a specific mark, not just a multiple of 5.
E.g. in my last year I got 65, 67, 68, 69 and 70.
Original post by Slsam
Really? I thought it was the norm to get a specific mark, not just a multiple of 5.
E.g. in my last year I got 65, 67, 68, 69 and 70.
E.g. in my last year I got 65, 67, 68, 69 and 70.
No I didn't mean you actually get a mark that says that, just there's so little difference between 66 and 68, say, that really it doesn't deserve to be a different number. The two-point increment means little to nothing because of how subjective written work is.
Considering there are usually ten marks between each classification, I feel a bit miffed when I graduated with an overall of 80% and received the same classification as someone with 69.5%.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
No I didn't mean you actually get a mark that says that, just there's so little difference between 66 and 68, say, that really it doesn't deserve to be a different number. The two-point increment means little to nothing because of how subjective written work is.
Mmm but then there is a large difference between 59 and 60, or 69 and 70 in just one mark.
Original post by Slsam
Mmm but then there is a large difference between 59 and 60, or 69 and 70 in just one mark.
What lecturers do when marking is get a vague idea of how good it is, i.e. what grade it should get, then mark according to that grade. So if they think it's a 2:1 they will simply give it a mark that gets it a 2:1. They will have some conception of a "high" or "low" 2:1 as well, but beyond that you won't have much more complexity. So yes, 69 =/= 71 but 66 = 68, more or less, simply because the grade, or holistic level, of the work is decided before the details.
I just applied the GPA (as explained in this thread) to our first year results. I had a 1st (yes I know it does not actually count) my wife a 2.1, her GPA however comes out higher. The difference seems to come from the fact that lots of 10 credit modules provides more granularity than my 6 x 20 credits.
Also I am examined on the lot in May, she has semester 1 exams and then new modules for examinations in May. (Both courses have course workcounting too.). Her course is out and out science with only a few essays, mine is the reverse mostly essay.
Food for thought.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Also I am examined on the lot in May, she has semester 1 exams and then new modules for examinations in May. (Both courses have course workcounting too.). Her course is out and out science with only a few essays, mine is the reverse mostly essay.
Food for thought.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Joinedup
coming out with an overall %age seems like the pursuit of spurious precision.
coming out with an overall %age seems like the pursuit of spurious precision.
Your point about spurious precision is well taken. The solution could be to include the average percentage along with a confidence interval, e.g. 68% (62%-74%). Therefore if comparing with someone else has 71% (67%-75%), you know the two are statistically indistinguishable.
What many other comments are forgetting is that even if individual pieces of work or modules are marked in broad categories, in calculating an overall degree classification, you always have to go through a conversion process with percentages or points. So by ending with discrete categories you always end up with less accurate information.
Why do we actually need this many (new proposal) degree classifications?
I'd have thought generally after a degree you either go into a job where the employer is more interested in what your subject specialisms are ie modules taken or dissertation subject and whether you had other employability strengths like work experience, internships and so on. A few "leet" type employers might only filter for A++++++++++++ candidates but they wouldn't give a fig about the other 10 or so categories below anyway.
or
You go on to a masters or doctorate where again they're interested in your sub specialisms ie the parts you actually excel at.
or
You go into an entirely different field to your subject altogether whereby they may only be looking for a graduate "type"
Having loads of different subgrades would lead to more discontent and requests for re-marks as there would be more boundaries that would have just been missed.
There comes a point in career and life where the % of a % of a % isn't relevant any more and what else you have done and have to offer is. I can see why people who have been locked into the world of academia can get grade and mark obsessed but it has to be realised that many employers don't need to look that closely.
I'd have thought generally after a degree you either go into a job where the employer is more interested in what your subject specialisms are ie modules taken or dissertation subject and whether you had other employability strengths like work experience, internships and so on. A few "leet" type employers might only filter for A++++++++++++ candidates but they wouldn't give a fig about the other 10 or so categories below anyway.
or
You go on to a masters or doctorate where again they're interested in your sub specialisms ie the parts you actually excel at.
or
You go into an entirely different field to your subject altogether whereby they may only be looking for a graduate "type"
Having loads of different subgrades would lead to more discontent and requests for re-marks as there would be more boundaries that would have just been missed.
There comes a point in career and life where the % of a % of a % isn't relevant any more and what else you have done and have to offer is. I can see why people who have been locked into the world of academia can get grade and mark obsessed but it has to be realised that many employers don't need to look that closely.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Should university grades be switched to a pass/fail system for all degrees?
- Grades
- I got 69% and the uni refuse to add
- Degree classification
- Why is a 2:1 'good' when it's technically average?
- Help me figure out my final degree grade please :(
- can i get into a russel group uni for masters if i flop my alevels
- Is it worth retaking one alevel while in first year uni?
- Appealing degree classification
- what can you do with a 3rd class degree?
- Can I sue my uni for administrative error in my final degree classification?
- PPE BA or BSc ??
- Calculation of final grade
- Mid 2:2 in Second Year, How much would I need for a 2:1 or a 1st?
- 2 modules outstanding from year 3 University
- Uni grade 69.67
- Need help on whether to take a gap year or go to third option
- University Classification
- Degree classification borderline question , pre- ponderance rule
- Low 2:2 in second year, can i get a 2:1 in third?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
