CONFUSED! Art &amp; Design GCSE Edexcel Result doesn&#x27;t match up?

Whilst both are marked out of 72, the NEA is multiplied by 1.5 to get the final score. Perhaps your school just added the 2 unit scores together on your results sheet?

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 2

Original post by Kayyem2

Did anybody get an 8 or 9 in their result for Pearson Edexcel Art & Design GCSE (1AD0)?

I put my raw marks into this calculator on their website, and the UMS mark total it shows is 30 marks more than what I got on my results paper:

https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/support/support-topics/results-certification/understanding-marks-and-grades/converting-marks-points-and-grades.html

It's the 'component scaling calculator' link (an Excel file - click 'enable editing' and should work. Might not open on phone, I had to do it on a computer)

Is anyone else's not matching up either?

Do you have your results sheet on you? What grade did you get and does it show the raw mark/UMS mark so I can have a look at the grade boundaries and check. :smile:

Reply 3

OP

Screenshot_20180828-135119__01.jpg122.5KB

Original post by Compost

Whilst both are marked out of 72, the NEA is multiplied by 1.5 to get the final score. Perhaps your school just added the 2 unit scores together on your results sheet?

That's right, although it's Pearson that are supposed to multiply it rather than the school. Thanks :smile:

Reply 4

OP

Screenshot_20180824-170539__01.jpg303.6KB

Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics

Do you have your results sheet on you? What grade did you get and does it show the raw mark/UMS mark so I can have a look at the grade boundaries and check. :smile:

I got 131 on my results sheet which was my raw mark - I was given my raw marks by my teacher in May.
This is a 7 on the results sheet (I was predicted a 9). But on the Pearson website it says it's supposed to be the UMS (scaled) mark on the results paper, never the raw mark.

Also, I put my raw marks into the Pearson scaling calculator (for 1AD0 Art & Design GCSE) and the total came out as 162 (UMS mark), which would be a 9.

Thank you for looking into this, greatly appreciated :smile:

Reply 5

Original post by Kayyem2

I got 131 on my results sheet which was my raw mark - I was given my raw marks by my teacher in May.
This is a 7 on the results sheet (I was predicted a 9). But on the Pearson website it says it's supposed to be the UMS (scaled) mark on the results paper, never the raw mark.

Also, I put my raw marks into the Pearson scaling calculator (for 1AD0 Art & Design GCSE) and the total came out as 162 (UMS mark), which would be a 9.

Thank you for looking into this, greatly appreciated :smile:

Glad I was able to help and well done to you on the excellent result! :smile:

Reply 6

OP

Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics

Glad I was able to help and well done to you on the excellent result! :smile:

Thank you but the issue still remains as the grade isn't right! They've put 131 as the number of marks on my results sheet, but that's incorrect as my UMS mark is 162.

I haven't been able to contact Pearson as you can only do it through the school. I don't suppose you know of anyone else whose grade is incorrect, or any way to let Pearson know? This is the case for lots of other students in my class.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 7

Original post by Kayyem2

Thank you but the issue still remains as the grade isn't right! They've put 131 as the number of marks on my results sheet, but that's incorrect as my UMS mark is 162.

I haven't been able to contact Pearson as you can only do it through the school. I don't suppose you know of anyone else whose grade is incorrect, or any way to let Pearson know? This is the case for lots of other students in my class.

Right ... Are you sure it says 131 UMS marks on the results paper instead of 162 UMS marks because 'raw marks' and 'UMS marks' aren't the same thing? If it does state 131 UMS marks instead of 162 UMS marks (correct mark according to you) than this needs to be raised with Pearson Edexcel. Given that this may the case with other students in your class, please let your subject teacher know asap and usually it would be them or the head of department who will then sort this out with the exam board. Very bizarre and unfortunate that this has happened.

Reply 8

Original post by Kayyem2

Thank you but the issue still remains as the grade isn't right! They've put 131 as the number of marks on my results sheet, but that's incorrect as my UMS mark is 162.

I haven't been able to contact Pearson as you can only do it through the school. I don't suppose you know of anyone else whose grade is incorrect, or any way to let Pearson know? This is the case for lots of other students in my class.

UMS doesn't exist for linear qualifications.

Exactly what grade and mark did your results sheet say?

When you say 'my raw marks' exactly what do you mean - the marks on your results sheet or the unmoderated ones you were given back in April?

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 9

OP

Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics

Right ... Are you sure it says 131 UMS marks on the results paper instead of 162 UMS marks because 'raw marks' and 'UMS marks' aren't the same thing? If it does state 131 UMS marks instead of 162 UMS marks (correct mark according to you) than this needs to be raised with Pearson Edexcel. Given that this may the case with other students in your class, please let your subject teacher know asap and usually it would be them or the head of department who will then sort this out with the exam board. Very bizarre and unfortunate that this has happened.

It's UMS marks shown on my results sheet, so it seems they've incorrectly put my raw marks number (131) as the UMS mark instead of the correctly calculated UMS mark.
I emailed my teacher a few days ago, so I suppose there isn't a lot I can do until she gets back to me, unless there's another way to notify Pearson.

Thank you so much for understanding and acknowledging this, I wanted to make sure it was known in case others have had the same thing! :smile:

Reply 10

/JR/

13

Original post by Kayyem2

It's UMS marks shown on my results sheet, so it seems they've incorrectly put my raw marks number (131) as the UMS mark instead of the correctly calculated UMS mark.
I emailed my teacher a few days ago, so I suppose there isn't a lot I can do until she gets back to me, unless there's another way to notify Pearson.

Thank you so much for understanding and acknowledging this, I wanted to make sure it was known in case others have had the same thing! :smile:

pretty sure this is the case for every art exam; my friend got a 7 in fine art after getting near 100% in terms of raw marks, so the absolute retards obviously added the marks instead of weighing them correctly and still managed to set wrong boundaries. surprised nothings been done.

Reply 11

OP

Original post by Compost

UMS doesn't exist for linear qualifications.

Exactly what grade and mark did your results sheet say?

When you say 'my raw marks' exactly what do you mean - the marks on your results sheet or the unmoderated ones you were given back in April?

I've checked in the Pearson booklet for my specific subject course and from what it says, there's definitely supposed to be a UMS mark calculated from it.

My results sheet says [mark equiv]: 131, and the grade is a 7.
Yes the 'raw marks' total of 131 was the marks total given by my teacher in May after she marked them.
Thanks :smile:

Reply 12

OP

Original post by /JR/

pretty sure this is the case for every art exam; my friend got a 7 in fine art after getting near 100% in terms of raw marks, so the absolute retards obviously added the marks instead of weighing them correctly and still managed to set wrong boundaries. surprised nothings been done.

Haha thank you, I'm glad someone else has mentioned having the same thing! I was confused that none of my friends had done anything about it! Hopefully my school will email me back soon and they can let Pearson know.
Have you or your friend contacted your school about it?

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 13

Honestly UMS do not exist for linear qualifications for GCSEs or A levels for any exam board. They are a device purely for modular exams. I'm not sure what Pearson booklet you're looking at but I suspect it's for the previous modular specification. Your marks and grade go together and there is no error.

Reply 14

Original post by Kayyem2

It's UMS marks shown on my results sheet, so it seems they've incorrectly put my raw marks number (131) as the UMS mark instead of the correctly calculated UMS mark.
I emailed my teacher a few days ago, so I suppose there isn't a lot I can do until she gets back to me, unless there's another way to notify Pearson.

Thank you so much for understanding and acknowledging this, I wanted to make sure it was known in case others have had the same thing! :smile:

You're welcome. You'll just have to wait until your teacher gets back to your via email and see what Pearson Edexcel are going to do about all of this. :smile:

I got a 9 in AQA tho

OP

Original post by Compost

Honestly UMS do not exist for linear qualifications for GCSEs or A levels for any exam board. They are a device purely for modular exams. I'm not sure what Pearson booklet you're looking at but I suspect it's for the previous modular specification. Your marks and grade go together and there is no error.

Of course I may be wrong, but I've researched this thoroughly and found lots of information on the Pearson website.

The booklet I was looking at is definitely for my GCSE Art course, with the code 1AD0, same as the code on my results sheet. First teaching 2016, first examination 2018.
[Yellow specification booklet here]:
https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/edexcel-gcses/art-and-design-2016.html

Indeed, the 131 marks matches with a 7, however I know that my raw marks were 131/144, and don't seem to have been scaled up to out of 180.

Of course, I may be mistaken but based on everything I've found stated on the Pearson website, I can't see how there hasn't been an error here.

Thanks.

Reply 17

OP

Original post by Thepizzawaffle

I got a 9 in AQA tho

Ah well done! That's good to know as a lot of my friends shrugged this off, saying that it's just rare to get a 9 - but it is possible, across the exam boards!
Thanks :smile:

Reply 18

Original post by Kayyem2

Of course I may be wrong, but I've researched this thoroughly and found lots of information on the Pearson website.

The booklet I was looking at is definitely for my GCSE Art course, with the code 1AD0, same as the code on my results sheet. First teaching 2016, first examination 2018.
[Yellow specification booklet here]:
https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/edexcel-gcses/art-and-design-2016.html

Indeed, the 131 marks matches with a 7, however I know that my raw marks were 131/144, and don't seem to have been scaled up to out of 180.

Of course, I may be mistaken but based on everything I've found stated on the Pearson website, I can't see how there hasn't been an error here.

There are 2 possible options:

1.

Your teacher applied the 1.5x adjustment for the NEA before giving you the raw marks.

2.

The marks you were given earlier this year can only have been the school's marks, yet to be moderated by external moderation. The moderator has moderated your school's marks down (it happens a lot, especially with a new spec) hence you have fewer marks than you thought.

I know you think there must be a mistake, but I really doubt there has been -sorry.

Reply 19

OP