This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Uni grade 69.67
- University Classification
- Portsmouth uni part time grading
- Ranking of University for Degree Equivalency
- I got 69% and the uni refuse to add
- Can you apply to a masters with a Top up Degree?
- Impact of failing a module in 2nd year - on masters/job applications?
- Grades
- Degree Classification
- Uni Troubles
- Mid 2:2 in Second Year, How much would I need for a 2:1 or a 1st?
- Cambridge NatSci Honors
- art therapy masters program what to expect
- can i get into a russel group uni for masters if i flop my alevels
- Can I sue my uni for administrative error in my final degree classification?
- Should university grades be switched to a pass/fail system for all degrees?
- High 2;2 in second year? Can i make it to a 2:1 or 1st in third year?
- Law Student - First year grades
- What grades will I need to achieve a 2:1
- University degree classification
Degree Classifications
Just interested in peoples thoughts on whether or not degree classifications should be further subdivided - for example a 2.i covers marks from 60 (just scraping a 2.i) to 69 (just missing a first) which is quite a wide range (same applies to 2.ii of course). Would it serve any purpose to further subdivide the classifications to an 'upper' 2.i or a 'lower' 2.i - or is that just unneccessary complication?
Thanks
Thanks
Scroll to see replies
krankenhaus
Just interested in peoples thoughts on whether or not degree classifications should be further subdivided - for example a 2.i covers marks from 60 (just scraping a 2.i) to 69 (just missing a first) which is quite a wide range (same applies to 2.ii of course). Would it serve any purpose to further subdivide the classifications to an 'upper' 2.i or a 'lower' 2.i - or is that just unneccessary complication?
Thanks
Thanks
Like the AHRC's categories of 'very high 2.i' - 'very good 2.i' - 'good or solid 2.i' - 'moderate 2.i' - 'low 2.i', you mean? To be honest, I doubt anyone but research councils actually cares enough about distinguishing between a 65 and a 68...
hobnob
Like the AHRC's categories of 'very high 2.i' - 'very good 2.i' - 'good or solid 2.i' - 'moderate 2.i' - 'low 2.i', you mean? To be honest, I doubt anyone but research councils actually cares enough about distinguishing between a 65 and a 68...
I would agree with you that going to that degree of subdivision is over the top - my query was just whether or not there should be some mechanism for differentiating between very low 2.i's and very high 2.i's. I appreciate that doing a subdivision like this is always going to be a blunt instrument and that wherever a boundary mark is set is always going to raise issues. I'm not advocating changes to the marking structure either - I was just interested in what other people thought.
I think if you start making changes like that, you're going to get people dropping down by a classification for very minor things that have lost them a few marks. It could totally cut a lot of people out of applications to top jobs, because a 'lower 2.i' would be regarded in the same way that a 2.ii is now.
This is from a lecturer at York Some awesome ideas:
After spring comes the final exam season. A season of frantic activity by students, academic, administrative and secretarial staff. Final year students know that they will be examined soon and then assigned a degree classification. For some, their lower than expected degree class will be traumatic and it will sap their confidence at a crucial time in their lives. For many, that degree classification will determine their path in life. For all, the classification will be their last experience of the university undergraduate system. The university's opinion of each student will be summed up in one or two words - first, upper second, lower second, third, pass or fail.
Given how important the degree classification is to many students and to some employers, it is sad that this system of degree classification is unscientific and deeply flawed. The basic problem is that the way of arriving at the classification is to take a continuously distributed variable (the list of marks) and then to assign each mark to a group (a degree class). This process of placing mark into groups results in two serious problems. It will inevitably place students who are statistically indistinguishable from each other in different categories. It will also inevitably place students who are readily distinguishable in the same category. Every student will gain or loose as a result of one of these faults of the flawed methodology so it is worth looking more closely into the nature of the problem.
As everyone knows, the marking of scripts, no matter how carefully done, is an imprecise activity. Marking is a matter of judgement and it should not be confused with a method of measurement. Despite the care taken by those setting and marking the questions (and the care is very considerable), the precision of each mark is not only poor but it is unknown. The final mean mark of a student cannot therefor be very precise, even when many marks have been averaged. This is particularly true if some individual marks represent a significant part of the final mark, as often happens when students do a final year project that may count for 20% of their final mark. The problem is illustrated by considering what happens if one defines the class boundary between the 2(i) and 2 (ii) degrees as 60%. A student with a mean of 59.94 should be given a 2 (ii) degree and a student with a mean of 60.55 should be given a 2(i) degree but such an assignment would be invalid and unfair if the precision of each individual's mark is say 1%. Thus if one had 5 students with marks of 51.00, 59.93, 59.94, 60.25, 60.35, the current system of classification could give three students 2 (ii) degrees (51.00, 59.93, 59.94) and two students 2(i) degrees (60.25, 60.55). However, anyone with any common sense, and certainly anyone with a knowledge of simple statistics, would recognise that this classification would be arbitrary and unfair. The system has placed four people (59.93, 59.94, 60.25, 60.35) who are likely to be statistically indistinguishable into two different categories and it has placed three people into a single category (51.00, 59.93, 59.94), one of which (51.00) is a person who is almost certainly different from the other two! It does not matter where one defines a "class boundary", the same problem exists. This type of problem exists every year and it is not unusual in a class of 80 students to find that 10% of the class have marks which are within 1% of the 60% boundary.
This problem just described has been recognised by statisticians for many decades. The power of statistical methods is that they allow one to be confident about when it is, and when it is not, possible to establish that numbers are different from each other. Many departments teach their students these statistical methods and yet the last thing we do to our students is to assign them degree classes using a methodology that is statistically invalid. What a terrible example to set the students.
Every year Boards of Examiners wrestle with this problem and many departments call upon outside experts ("the external examiners") to give extra judgements on people whose marks fall into the region around the class boundaries. Sometimes an oral examination is given to the "borderline" student and the external examiner tries to detect some signs of 2 (ii) or 2(i) quality in each student in order to help assign the student to a particular degree class. However, it defies logic to expect a stranger to somehow overcome the statistical deficiencies of the system by judging some other poorly defined criteria. Too much depends on the personality and areas of interest of the external examiner and the student for it to be a valid process.
These criticisms of the degree classification system are not new but institutional inertia seems to have hindered reforms. Individuals like myself who are ashamed of our association with a process so obviously invalid have tried to instigate reform. However, the reform needs university-wide consideration and possibly national action. It has been argued that no single university could abandon degree classification. Certainly there is little indication that the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC, the government agency concerned with higher education) is concerned or even understands these matters. The fact that HEFC has just completed the Research Assessment Exercise, which classified all university departments into broad categories (1-5*) based on their research abilities suggests that HEFC does not understand the basic problem!
It is clear that classification systems are so embedded in the university culture in the UK that it is unlikely that they will be abandoned by choice. The only hope to rid us of this irrational and fundamentally unfair institutional behaviour is an appeal to another institution - the courts. Maybe all that is required is that a student who gets the highest 2 (ii) mark in a large class goes to court and claims that the institution awarding the degree was unfair in not awarding them a 2(i) degree. Assuming that the student bringing the case knows that their mark differed only by a fraction of a percent from the next student up the list who was awarded a 2(i), it should be possible to argue that the difference between the two marks was statistically insignificant. For many years universities were protected from such legal challenges by the fact that final examination marks were never given to students. However, the Data Protection Act now enables students to obtain their own marks and it is inevitable that at some future date two friends will co-operate to enable a legal challenge to be mounted.
What would replace degree classifications? The simplest replacement would be an unclassified degree but with a student's mean mark and class position being given to the student. The superiority of such a simple system is clear when one considers the case of the five marks discussed earlier. Not only would this system be fairer, it would save considerable amounts of time and energy in all universities and would be more humane for the students. However, there might be some sense in moving to a more meaningful record of student's record at university which might included the mean mark, their class position and some standardised assessment of their personal strengths and weaknesses. Universities increasingly claim that they are teaching transferable skills of interest to the student, employers and society. The achievement in those areas could be judged and that information made available. Indeed much of the information now given in personal references could be summarised in a profile that could be recorded and verified in a way much more rigorously than done currently. The abandonment of degree classifications need not be held up for the want of a better, fairer alternative.
After spring comes the final exam season. A season of frantic activity by students, academic, administrative and secretarial staff. Final year students know that they will be examined soon and then assigned a degree classification. For some, their lower than expected degree class will be traumatic and it will sap their confidence at a crucial time in their lives. For many, that degree classification will determine their path in life. For all, the classification will be their last experience of the university undergraduate system. The university's opinion of each student will be summed up in one or two words - first, upper second, lower second, third, pass or fail.
Given how important the degree classification is to many students and to some employers, it is sad that this system of degree classification is unscientific and deeply flawed. The basic problem is that the way of arriving at the classification is to take a continuously distributed variable (the list of marks) and then to assign each mark to a group (a degree class). This process of placing mark into groups results in two serious problems. It will inevitably place students who are statistically indistinguishable from each other in different categories. It will also inevitably place students who are readily distinguishable in the same category. Every student will gain or loose as a result of one of these faults of the flawed methodology so it is worth looking more closely into the nature of the problem.
As everyone knows, the marking of scripts, no matter how carefully done, is an imprecise activity. Marking is a matter of judgement and it should not be confused with a method of measurement. Despite the care taken by those setting and marking the questions (and the care is very considerable), the precision of each mark is not only poor but it is unknown. The final mean mark of a student cannot therefor be very precise, even when many marks have been averaged. This is particularly true if some individual marks represent a significant part of the final mark, as often happens when students do a final year project that may count for 20% of their final mark. The problem is illustrated by considering what happens if one defines the class boundary between the 2(i) and 2 (ii) degrees as 60%. A student with a mean of 59.94 should be given a 2 (ii) degree and a student with a mean of 60.55 should be given a 2(i) degree but such an assignment would be invalid and unfair if the precision of each individual's mark is say 1%. Thus if one had 5 students with marks of 51.00, 59.93, 59.94, 60.25, 60.35, the current system of classification could give three students 2 (ii) degrees (51.00, 59.93, 59.94) and two students 2(i) degrees (60.25, 60.55). However, anyone with any common sense, and certainly anyone with a knowledge of simple statistics, would recognise that this classification would be arbitrary and unfair. The system has placed four people (59.93, 59.94, 60.25, 60.35) who are likely to be statistically indistinguishable into two different categories and it has placed three people into a single category (51.00, 59.93, 59.94), one of which (51.00) is a person who is almost certainly different from the other two! It does not matter where one defines a "class boundary", the same problem exists. This type of problem exists every year and it is not unusual in a class of 80 students to find that 10% of the class have marks which are within 1% of the 60% boundary.
This problem just described has been recognised by statisticians for many decades. The power of statistical methods is that they allow one to be confident about when it is, and when it is not, possible to establish that numbers are different from each other. Many departments teach their students these statistical methods and yet the last thing we do to our students is to assign them degree classes using a methodology that is statistically invalid. What a terrible example to set the students.
Every year Boards of Examiners wrestle with this problem and many departments call upon outside experts ("the external examiners") to give extra judgements on people whose marks fall into the region around the class boundaries. Sometimes an oral examination is given to the "borderline" student and the external examiner tries to detect some signs of 2 (ii) or 2(i) quality in each student in order to help assign the student to a particular degree class. However, it defies logic to expect a stranger to somehow overcome the statistical deficiencies of the system by judging some other poorly defined criteria. Too much depends on the personality and areas of interest of the external examiner and the student for it to be a valid process.
These criticisms of the degree classification system are not new but institutional inertia seems to have hindered reforms. Individuals like myself who are ashamed of our association with a process so obviously invalid have tried to instigate reform. However, the reform needs university-wide consideration and possibly national action. It has been argued that no single university could abandon degree classification. Certainly there is little indication that the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC, the government agency concerned with higher education) is concerned or even understands these matters. The fact that HEFC has just completed the Research Assessment Exercise, which classified all university departments into broad categories (1-5*) based on their research abilities suggests that HEFC does not understand the basic problem!
It is clear that classification systems are so embedded in the university culture in the UK that it is unlikely that they will be abandoned by choice. The only hope to rid us of this irrational and fundamentally unfair institutional behaviour is an appeal to another institution - the courts. Maybe all that is required is that a student who gets the highest 2 (ii) mark in a large class goes to court and claims that the institution awarding the degree was unfair in not awarding them a 2(i) degree. Assuming that the student bringing the case knows that their mark differed only by a fraction of a percent from the next student up the list who was awarded a 2(i), it should be possible to argue that the difference between the two marks was statistically insignificant. For many years universities were protected from such legal challenges by the fact that final examination marks were never given to students. However, the Data Protection Act now enables students to obtain their own marks and it is inevitable that at some future date two friends will co-operate to enable a legal challenge to be mounted.
What would replace degree classifications? The simplest replacement would be an unclassified degree but with a student's mean mark and class position being given to the student. The superiority of such a simple system is clear when one considers the case of the five marks discussed earlier. Not only would this system be fairer, it would save considerable amounts of time and energy in all universities and would be more humane for the students. However, there might be some sense in moving to a more meaningful record of student's record at university which might included the mean mark, their class position and some standardised assessment of their personal strengths and weaknesses. Universities increasingly claim that they are teaching transferable skills of interest to the student, employers and society. The achievement in those areas could be judged and that information made available. Indeed much of the information now given in personal references could be summarised in a profile that could be recorded and verified in a way much more rigorously than done currently. The abandonment of degree classifications need not be held up for the want of a better, fairer alternative.
Hobnob, the link is here: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~drf1/degrees.htm
copied and pasted Im afraid.
The man was a legend and tried to push this agenda whenever he could. Shame no one listened................yet.
copied and pasted Im afraid.
The man was a legend and tried to push this agenda whenever he could. Shame no one listened................yet.
Yeah coming from the US system where we get a number, I've thought that it makes sense just to have "67%" on a transcript. The system of how I'll end up with a distinction in my masters is so ridiculously complicated; I'd rather just have the overall score to be honest.
I think the classification system should be kept the same, but the mark should be made available as well as the class, so employers would see 2.i- 69 or 2.i- 60 instead of just 2.i. The same can be said of A-levels, where A- 600 is vastly different to A- 480. This would be a lot easier than creating new subdivisions at degree level or a new A* grade at A-level.
I agree that a percentage mark would be the best way forward. Although in some subjects the difference between 69% and 70% is actually more pronounced than 1 out of 100 so it is not as fine as some would have it.
kellywood_5
I think the classification system should be kept the same, but the mark should be made available as well as the class, so employers would see 2.i- 69 or 2.i- 60 instead of just 2.i. The same can be said of A-levels, where A- 600 is vastly different to A- 480. This would be a lot easier than creating new subdivisions at degree level or a new A* grade at A-level.
I think universities should give students the option of printing either the degree classification or the average mark (or both) on the degree certificate.
korektphool
I think universities should give students the option of printing either the degree classification or the average mark (or both) on the degree certificate.
Interesting idea, but then you could argue whether it's fair on those who got a decent or high 2.i (for example) and declared it to be considered equal to someone with a low 2.i who didn't.
I guess if you're that bothered you could put 2.1 (69%) on your CV if you wanted. I mean 2.1 already means upper second class honours ... would it sound right to have 'upper, upper second class' and 'lower, upper second class. *haha* I think not.
In my degree those that were 2% or less below a grade boundary were called for a viva voce examination where they had the chance to be moved up.
In my degree those that were 2% or less below a grade boundary were called for a viva voce examination where they had the chance to be moved up.
just came across this http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article328872.ece
maybe not too long before the sytem is changed
maybe not too long before the sytem is changed
kellywood_5
Interesting idea, but then you could argue whether it's fair on those who got a decent or high 2.i (for example) and declared it to be considered equal to someone with a low 2.i who didn't.
Well in my opinion, all 2.i degrees are worth the same. It's just the matter of allowing you the option of saying 2.i (69%) as opposed to simply 2.i (when the mark is really 61% or something).
Hmm, so what do your final transcripts look like then? I thought they had the overall mark and then all the module marks as well? I think that would make the most sense because that way you could see where you did well and where not so much.. So you normally just get "2.1" or "1st" on your transcript? Will you yourself know what you actually got? Also, will you get one final paper that says all your marks over all 3 years? I've been wondering that for quite a while now..
flexiblefish
just came across this http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article328872.ece
maybe not too long before the sytem is changed
maybe not too long before the sytem is changed
I love business they are opposed to any change that doesn't directly increase their profits, well it isn't any of their business trying to influence how universities assess students anyway.
I am broadly in favour of something a bit more defined, simply because it has the potential to stop the more unfair system of employers using UCAS points and thus giving a bit of perspective on the achievement of a degree compared to A-levels (it should be pointed out to business that the UCAS points selection system is rapidly going to lose its efficacy at reducing the admin burden on HR as entrance requirements for many courses at many universities now exceed the UCAS requirements for graduate programmes).
However, it will need to be accompanied with a large change in assessment culture in most universities as academics are aware of the grade boundaries and will mark accordingly i.e. the difference between 69% and 70% is much more significant than the difference between 68% and 69% in many assessments that involve a more subjective and holistic marking style (i.e. essays and project work).
I like the old system (because I've done well in it), but I can see a case for a more rigorous and differentiated grade scale. A pass-fail basis isn't enough to differentiate between achievers (unless the pass mark is dramatically increased). I suspect if the old system is thrown away, employers will simply ask for a specific percentage instead, reducing changes to tokenistic gestures rather than real reform. We could end up with a GPA system one day.
The employers are acting like idiots. ChemistBoy, I hope you noticed that the HR at an MC law firm said they don't want a full transcript because "it takes too long to go through." (refer this to my comments about why university rep matters to employers).
I know that if I get a 65+% on my MSc, I'd want it to be differentiated from someone who got a 60 and gets a merit. 65+% is PhD level work (according to my department), yet it's lumped together in a 10 point spread. It doesn't make any sense.
All the current system does is protect those who get low 2:1s and hurt those who get high ones.
I know that if I get a 65+% on my MSc, I'd want it to be differentiated from someone who got a 60 and gets a merit. 65+% is PhD level work (according to my department), yet it's lumped together in a 10 point spread. It doesn't make any sense.
All the current system does is protect those who get low 2:1s and hurt those who get high ones.
shady lane
Yes I agree that transcripts are unwieldy and may be too much information. We need a system that is the fairest to students allowing them to demonstrate their ability clearer in comparison to their peers, especially as university offers keep rising (at places where they can do so) so more and more 2:1 graduates will have the UCAS points to apply for the graduate schemes (that's actual a higher percentage so as the sector will probably expand a bit further that is quite a lot more people). Although whether the UCAS points limits would stop if a new system was in place is another issue entirely, I suspect not, sadly.
Related discussions
- Uni grade 69.67
- University Classification
- Portsmouth uni part time grading
- Ranking of University for Degree Equivalency
- I got 69% and the uni refuse to add
- Can you apply to a masters with a Top up Degree?
- Impact of failing a module in 2nd year - on masters/job applications?
- Grades
- Degree Classification
- Uni Troubles
- Mid 2:2 in Second Year, How much would I need for a 2:1 or a 1st?
- Cambridge NatSci Honors
- art therapy masters program what to expect
- can i get into a russel group uni for masters if i flop my alevels
- Can I sue my uni for administrative error in my final degree classification?
- Should university grades be switched to a pass/fail system for all degrees?
- High 2;2 in second year? Can i make it to a 2:1 or 1st in third year?
- Law Student - First year grades
- What grades will I need to achieve a 2:1
- University degree classification
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 9 minutes ago
Best university for (mechanical) engineering?Last reply 16 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 20 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 21 minutes ago
Learning basic vocabulary list for Higher Level GCSE in French - is that enough?Last reply 28 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 33 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2814
Posted 34 minutes ago
Is Birmingham city university good for biomedicineLast reply 36 minutes ago
Official Politics and/or International Relations Applicants Thread 2024Posted 37 minutes ago
University of Portsmouth or Staffordshire UniversityLast reply 41 minutes ago
Morgan Stanley: Step In, Step Up Programme 2024Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levelsTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levels
