You are Here: Home

# Help required with stupid lettering system! Tweet

Discuss current events and changes in the education system and ways you'd like to see it improved, from secondary school through to postgraduate study.

Announcements Posted on
TSR launches Learn Together! - Our new subscription to help improve your learning 16-05-2013
1. Help required with stupid lettering system!
If anybody has had the pleasurable experience of dealing with the 'new' lettering system employed for marking university modules would they mind giving me a hand with explaining a few things. I'm at Lancaster if it helps.
2. Re: Help required with stupid lettering system!
(Original post by crocker710)
If anybody has had the pleasurable experience of dealing with the 'new' lettering system employed for marking university modules would they mind giving me a hand with explaining a few things. I'm at Lancaster if it helps.
I went somewhere that used letters, what's the problem?
3. Re: Help required with stupid lettering system!
My university somehow managed to combine letters with percentages and classes - I might be able to help, but no promises.
4. Re: Help required with stupid lettering system!
(Original post by Norton1)
I went somewhere that used letters, what's the problem?
Nothing is the problem, as such. I gained a II:i so I'm happy. However, an A is apparently the equiv. to 80% and an A+ is the equiv. of 100% (an A- being 70%)

Now I find it very hard to believe that the difference between a D- (40%) and A-(70%) is the same as the difference between an A-(70%) and A+(100%)

Also the degree classification of 17.5 or more (out of 24) being an I which was the equiv. of 68.3%. Why are they reducing the level of which a first is awarded.

I was wondering why this is the case? Is the difference between the degree an essay is a first and the difference between a borderline fail and borderline first the same?
5. Re: Help required with stupid lettering system!
(Original post by Norton1)
I went somewhere that used letters, what's the problem?
Basically from D- (given 9/24) to A- (given 18/24) the grades increase sequentially. From there however, they increase in threes A being 21/24 and A+ 24/24. I can't see the logic behind the top two being so different. The difference for a marker between awarding an A- and an A is minute, however in reality for the student it bares out at the difference between a whole grade lower down the system (from a C to a B for example).
Last edited by crocker710; 12-07-2012 at 19:55.
6. Re: Help required with stupid lettering system!
(Original post by crocker710)
Basically from D- (given 9/24) to A- (given 18/24) the grades increase sequentially. From there however, they increase in threes A being 21/24 and A+ 24/24. I can't see the logic behind the top two being so different. The difference for a marker between awarding an A- and an A is minute, however in reality for the student it bares out at the difference between a whole grade lower down the system (from a C to a B for example).
To be honest it seems to me they've just not given themselves enough wiggle room in the A classification. My place had five A divisions, and three for B, C and D. That makes a lot of sense to me. I expect you would see very few A+ actually awarded and that it would actually make a big difference to a marker whether something got A- or A.
7. Re: Help required with stupid lettering system!
(Original post by Norton1)
To be honest it seems to me they've just not given themselves enough wiggle room in the A classification. My place had five A divisions, and three for B, C and D. That makes a lot of sense to me. I expect you would see very few A+ actually awarded and that it would actually make a big difference to a marker whether something got A- or A.
I've just received my results today, I had 8 exams with 2 essay questions in each (total 16 essays). Of the 16 essays, 2 were of 'A' standard, 3 were 'A-' standard, and the rest ranged between B- and B+. My misunderstanding with this is that, if those 3A- were As I'd have averaged a first. I'm not, in any way, complaining. I'm very happy with my result. It seems however that such a small difference, or even markers style could mean the massive difference between a degree.

Furthermore, with this current system, it is possible to go from a third D+ (11.4) to a first B+ (17.4) [it is put to the board of the university if the score is between 17 and 17.5 to be discussed if it should be given a first or an upper second]. It seems to devalue the degree. This is an extreme case. It will never happen. Somebody who gets a year average of a third isn't going to gain 100% in every single assessment the following year. However, someone who gains a middle II:ii could get a First if they gained As - something which seems to artificially boost the amount of firsts awarded. In the old assessment style, if somebody gained 55% it would be almost unheard of for them to average 80%+ to get a first overall.

Basically I can not see the logic behind it. At all.
Useful resources

## Articles:

Debata and Current Affairs GuidelinesDebate and Current Affairs Wiki

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups