The Student Room Group

Should unis change their degree classifications?

Scroll to see replies

Among my friends there is a protocol we all follow (just starting second year but will be using first year grades to apply for third year placements) - if we got in the upper half of a band we state the 'grade' so 1, 2:1, 2:2 etc *and* the percentage. If we got in the lower half of a band, however, we just state the grade.

So my CV just says 'First year mark: 2:1' while my friend's says 'First year mark: 2:1 (67%)'
Reply 81
Absolutely not.
Reply 82
Original post by Folion
Do you mean percentiles as in the top 10% or whatever get a first? Or do you mean just show what % mark the person got over all for their course?

The problem with doing percentiles as in top 10% is that some courses are very small in cohort and so you might only get about half a dozen people taking a certain specialism. In such cases you may get an extremely bright cohort all worthy of firsts and 2.1 or a relatively dim lot than can only just scrape a pass.


Course - year - percentile (among their cohort) is what I'd use. Your issue with small cohorts is a sensible one, but even in the current system that throws up problems - there's nothing to stop a university just giving them all firsts and 2:1s even if they only deserve to scrape a pass, just to make their employment statistics better. It's the same problem with A Levels and GCSEs, the exam boards keep trying to give out more and more higher grades in order to get more custom from schools, and the schools go for whoever marks the most generously.
Original post by Joinedup
why is it important to divide up firsts at the moment? ...

Original post by Dalek1099
...


I think Dalek makes a fair point. Even if scores in the 80s and 90s are usually confined to subjects like maths, there should be a way of differentiating and recognising a student getting 70 and a student getting 90 - because they deserve it. A few universities have starred firsts, which is a good idea.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by rattusratus
anything below a 3rd is an ordinary degree or fail so you are saying an ordinary degree is worth D-

that person could of missed a modual for what every reason (family issues, health etc...) but still got top marks in everything else

I think ordinary degrees should be set out better so maybe

1st - over 70% average in modules
2nd - over 50% average in modules
3rd - 40% average in modules

style (similar to hons) and the hons degrees should remain the same as they are


an Ordinary Degree is a 300 credit award usually without a thesis / dissertation rather than 360 including thesis / dissertation that makes up an honours degree


consequently Ordinary degrees should be marked on the same basis as their 360 credit brethren - the difference being indicated by the absences of honours

it seems many people confuse an Ordinary Degree with a 'Pass' ( i.e. effectively a near miss) classification of a 360 credit degree
Reply 85
Original post by CHAZAA123
At my uni, we have the degree classification and a GPA score.


That sounds like something that I would be comfortable with. I like the existing system as it is clear and recognizable, but if someone wanted more detail about where in the, for example, 2:1 boundary you are you can just give them your GPA. :smile:
Reply 86
Original post by Arieisit
Cambridge should make and mark exams for all university courses. Be it a higher education examination board. That way degree classifications can be standard. It however should be less shallow than the A level exams.

No mark schemes.

No repeat or similar questions every year.

Etc.

Posted from TSR Mobile


They are already part of an exam board, OCR, and personally I wouldn't want them to mark my degree after the way the cocked-up my NVQ several times!
I think the Letters thing is overly complicated, the problem with more bands is it results in the difficulty of one student getting 63% and getting a B-, one getting 64% and getting a B, one getting 67% and getting a B+ etc. Is the difference in quality between the 63 and 64% assignment actually noticeable? How much better is the 67% piece than the 64%, enough to warrant a different grade allocation? It's difficult enough as it is and is why my university changed from a percentage based feedback system to a "high, mid or low" for each classification, which obviously wasn't official on our graduation classification, but was done in our feedback. The problem with percentages is when someone gets say 64% and someone else gets 65%, the student who got 64% desperately asks how they could have gotten 1% more. Our lecturers honestly said at times they couldn't answer that, because it''s just 1%, it might have been how they felt on the day, it might have that they thought "Yeah this is around mid 2:1, I'll give this one 64%", then a few hours later, "hmm another mid 2:1 assignment, eh I'll say 65%". They may been practically identical, but when you're marking a essay based assignments it's practically impossible to have some sort of 1% scale where you can define what a 63% is, a 64%, a 56%, a 73% etc. You might results like that for tests with certain answers, like in maths, but not with essays.

Personally I feel there should be something to show the difference between a "low" and "high" score within a classification. So say 60-65 is the lower half, 66-70 is the upper half, this could be reflected by 2:1-Lower and 2:1-Upper, for instance. I mean I was given a first but I was lucky, they rounded it up from 69% because I got a first in my diss and most of my 3rd year modules. I openly admit someone with say 78%, must have constantly produced higher quality work than I did. Something should reflect that and I'd have no qualms about my degree classification saying "1st class-Lower".
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 88
What happened to 'E' ? the new systems flawed already
Original post by joey11223
I think the Letters thing is overly complicated, the problem with more bands is it results in the difficulty of one student getting 63% and getting a B-, one getting 64% and getting a B, one getting 67% and getting a B+ etc. Is the difference in quality between the 63 and 64% assignment actually noticeable? How much better is the 67% piece than the 64%, enough to warrant a different grade allocation? It's difficult enough as it is and is why my university changed from a percentage based feedback system to a "high, mid or low" for each classification, which obviously wasn't official on our graduation classification, but was done in our feedback. The problem with percentages is when someone gets say 64% and someone else gets 65%, the student who got 64% desperately asks how they could have gotten 1% more. Our lecturers honestly said at times they couldn't answer that, because it''s just 1%, it might have been how they felt on the day, it might have that they thought "Yeah this is around mid 2:1, I'll give this one 64%", then a few hours later, "hmm another mid 2:1 assignment, eh I'll say 65%". They may been practically identical, but when you're marking a essay based assignments it's practically impossible to have some sort of 1% scale where you can define what a 63% is, a 64%, a 56%, a 73% etc. You might results like that for tests with certain answers, like in maths, but not with essays.

Personally I feel there should be something to show the difference between a "low" and "high" score within a classification. So say 60-65 is the lower half, 66-70 is the upper half, this could be reflected by 2:1-Lower and 2:1-Upper, for instance. I mean I was given a first but I was lucky, they rounded it up from 69% because I got a first in my diss and most of my 3rd year modules. I openly admit someone with say 78%, must have constantly produced higher quality work than I did. Something should reflect that and I'd have no qualms about my degree classification saying "1st class-Lower".


Is the difference between a 69% to 70% assignment noticeable?-worthy of an entire grade higher?- this new system will prevent these things happening because under the new system the 69% person would only miss out on a 1/3 of a grade so it would be a better system.
Original post by Dalek1099
Is the difference between a 69% to 70% assignment noticeable?-worthy of an entire grade higher?- this new system will prevent these things happening because under the new system the 69% person would only miss out on a 1/3 of a grade so it would be a better system.


Well that as 69% average, one would imagine that even with this new system in place, universities would still use discretion on whether they round up grades to different classifications, whether a 69% B+ would be a 70% A-, for instance. Even with more grades to chose from, I imagine people would consider, even if it may not be accurate, that there is more of a difference between an A- candidate and a B+ candidate, than a B+ and a B candidate.
Reply 91
Even though there are different exam boards out there broadly speaking you can directly compare GCSE candidates with each other and A level candidates with each other nationally so A*, A, B etc etc actually mean something and the narrower bands work ok.

Cut to Universities and the diversity of subject matter is massive and even within a broad subject heading the number of different modules and specialisms one can take make the total diversity almost infinitesimal. In terms of the way things have to be assessed that is hugely diverse too, no longer do you have a uniformity you can compare across the board. It's like comparing apples with oranges with pears with grapes. Some assessment methods lend themselves to higher % marks and for some course what would be pretty darned good is just meh for something else.

What the current system does imho is express competence levels. Whether you get 70% or 90% you are probably more than capable of top intellectual posts the question then becomes what else do you bring to the table.
Original post by Tortious
I'm not sure what this serves to achieve, since it still doesn't address the ongoing debate around whether particular institutions' degrees are more "difficult", "respected" etc. than others.

Instead, surely it'd be easier for employers who were interested in finer detail to insist on applicants listing their module marks? This is standard practice in the legal field and gives employers specialising in particular areas of law more of an insight into the candidate's areas of weakness (and whether they're especially relevant to the job for which the candidate is applying).



I am studying law next year and would like to know more about module marks. I know that each module is worth 30 credits, but that is all. Can you help me undestand?.
Original post by chazwomaq
The current system is stupid. In fact, any system where a continuous variable is arbitrarily converted into a discrete category is stupid, and almost all unis (and school exams for that matter) mark on a percentage or points scale. Unless you have a multimodal distribution (and in exam results, you don't), the transformation is totally illogical, as anyone who is familiar with statistics will appreciate.

13 categories is better than 5 but why not just present to damned percentage! Everyone is familiar with percentages, whereas we have to learn the grade categories for this particular system.

This system would avoid the unfairness of someone with 60% being classified the same as someone who got 69%, and different from someone who got 59%. Additionally, I would include something common in the American system, which is your position in the class (graduated 5th in class etc.) so you can be compared against peers.


Agree with this - the UK classification system should be replaced; the best alternative is undoubtedly, however, a raw percentage or GPA score.
Reply 94
Original post by Jasmine1992
I am studying law next year and would like to know more about module marks. I know that each module is worth 30 credits, but that is all. Can you help me undestand?.


I'm flattered that you asked me, but I was at Cambridge where things were done a little differently! If you PM me your course details (website link etc.) I can have a look and try and decipher it for you. Alternatively, the "Law Students - Chat Thread" (can't link it on my phone) might be a good place to ask. :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 95
Original post by electriic_ink
What?

The advantage of the class system is that if someone narrowly misses a 2.i, they can put their percentage on their CV and, since most people don't put it on, it stands out and forces them to acknowledge how close the candidate was.

If every CV has a GPA on it, employers are going to read it like supermarket customers read prices: i.e. the "2" will be what sticks out in a 2.99 GPA score.


Just like now, employers would use an arbitrary cut off to classify candidates. There's no difference between saying '2.1. cut off' and '2.5 GPA cut off. With the 13 classifications proposed that cut off will be higher than it is now (at least eventually.)

Which is why I said I personally like the GPA. Here's why:
My first and your (hypothetical) first look the same on paper. But my 4.0 and your 3.8 look pretty different.

I did go to a university that gave out GPAs (not in the UK), and I do have a 4.0 for my honours degree, which means I'm biased to the system that makes me look the best. Most people probably are. Someone who's scraped a narrow 1st probably likes the current classification system, and someone who just missed out on a 1st probably would like the proposed system.

By the way: anyone who puts their grade percentage on their CV is advertising the fact that they've narrowly missed something and they aren't happy with their mark. I can't imagine an employer being too stoked about hiring someone like that. Just my opinion.

I also don't think that employers would skip the last section of a GPA, it's not hard to read two numbers and a 2.0 and a 2.9 look pretty different, even at first glance.
Reply 96
All it will do is make it easier for graduate employers to weed out candidates, that said I don't believe that grades are always a good indication on whether someone will be a decent employee or not anyway. Personally I think the current grading system works well, if masters admission tutors aren't complaining then what is the problem?
Reply 97
Original post by Dalek1099
Is the difference between a 69% to 70% assignment noticeable?-worthy of an entire grade higher?- this new system will prevent these things happening because under the new system the 69% person would only miss out on a 1/3 of a grade so it would be a better system.


I don't know if this is commonplace among other universities, but where I studied in Loughborough the marking system for humanities degrees was structured so that this very rarely happened. They did this was by marking assignments to set percentages, for example a piece of work (from 2:1 to 1:1) could only get the following marks: 60, 63, 65, 67, 70, 75, 80, 85 (capped at 85). The marker would start off looking over the work deciding if it was a 2:1 or a 1:1 candidate by putting a 6/7/8 as the first digit and then work from there. They never deviated from those marks unless you did multiple assignments (which could average out to grades other than those mentioned above).

I think there are two bigger problems with degree classifications:

1) As mentioned by multiple people, objectivity. The standard of degree at Oxford compared to Loughborough must be different. Same goes from Loughborough to London Met.

2) Humanities degrees (from my experience at different universities) are capped (usually at around 85%, which is deemed publishable) whereas scientific and mathematical degrees are not. The reasons for this are clear, in general a maths question has a right answer and a wrong answer (maybe not in theoretical maths and sciences though) so it is possible to get 100% correct, whereas humanities degrees are subject to analytical approaches that can't ever be judged 100% correct. That wouldn't be a problem if employers weren't adopting a blanket approach to grade requirements, but they are. So really humanities degrees should be scaled (like UMS or something similar) so that over 85% is possible alongside mathematics degrees. I'm not saying humanities degrees are harder/easier than maths/science degrees (I have no idea having only just finished my first degree) but I would say getting into the 70s and 80s for humanities undergrads seems incredibly rare, whereas everyone I know who did a maths/science degrees registered at lease one 85+ mark somewhere.
I just don't understand why 4.25 would ever be a sensible number. Surely making a percentage available as well as degree classification would comfortably deal with the issue more effectively, without assigning ugly numbers to degrees.
I'm going to say yes they should change the grading system to allow more grades which better reflects the students mark. It's more fairer on the people who narrowly miss out on grade in the current system, for example getting 49 is still a third like 39.5 is.

Quick Reply

Latest