We should be given % not grades

How does that make a difference?

With grades: Two students both get a B overall for their first 2 modules. One of them is very poor and can't resit, and gets a B overall as his final grade. The other student resits his first two modules and goes up to an A overall.

With %s: Two students both get 72% overall for their first two modules. One of them is very poor and can't resit, and gets 75% overall as his final mark. The other student resits his first two modules and goes up to 83% overall.


The simple solution would be to ban resits. Reists have a number of disadvantages besides inequality.

I do not see how poor = not being able to resit. If your school makes you pay, I'm sure they can appeal saying they are capable of much better, therefore making the school look better ergo free resit.

It just makes things a bit complicated for universities and employers, really. They would have to categorise you anyway and the grade system just saves them a job.

So when I tell employers I got a 2.2 there thinking I work at 50%, when my lowest grade was 57%.

It'd just make people more competitive, I think. Not a big difference for employers, they're not gonna choose someone because they've got 2% more than somebody else.

Just take the IB for example. Working on a 45 point scale is going to tell you so much more than a 7 (our grading system) point one.

Doesn't reward people who do well first-time round and creates a "resit culture"; allows people to sit AS papers when they're in their A2 year and have consolidated their ability in the subject (thus giving them an unfair advantage); contributes to grade inflation; offers a luxury which is not available in most other exam systems (i.e. Highers/IB/EB) and is definitely not available at university; and contributes to heavy grade inflation.

(I should put that in my sig).

Anyone can take retakes, it's not an unfair advantage.

Grades are too restrictive to show your true academic worth and potential. Someone who gets 100% at AS is considered on the same terms as someone who got 80% (excluding putting it on reference / cambridge - this shouldn't be necessary in the first place)

Someone who misses an AAA offer by 3 marks in one grade is more likely to be considered than someone who missed 3 marks over BBB.

Surely if we are given percentages, then uni's and others can see our worth more?

Anyone can take retakes, it's not an unfair advantage.
I was off ill for 3months and my grandfather died 2weeks before my exams, without retakes I wouldn't be going to uni.

It's unfair on people who do well the first time round. And the fact that anyone can take resits is the exact problem with the system.




Yeah, but that kind of thing almost always gets covered by extenuating circumstances, where you have an actual reason for poor exam performance. Current resits are offered to anyone and everyone.

Teachers can get things wrong.
Such instances are rectified the second time around.

So the first time around would not have been an accurate reflection of a student's ability.

I really don't like these kinds of arguments, it's up to the student to make sure they possess the correct knowledge for an exam , hence why syllabi are available for free and textbooks are published for each subject (and grants given to make these education resources available).

The need for resists seem to stem from just people not bothering at AS if anything. A-level is basically the only system I can think of where retakes are offered like that. Why should English students be offered this lxury of being able to whitewash over their past laziness when students from the rest of the world don't?