[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.

[Norton1]

(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?

[TheSownRose]

My university somehow managed to combine letters with percentages and classes - I might be able to help, but no promises.

[crocker710]

(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?

[crocker710]

(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).

[Norton1]

(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.

[crocker710]

(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.