Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Official AS & A2 Results Day 2016 Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: What grades are you expecting on results day?
    A*A*A* (A2 only)
    192
    5.80%
    A*A*A (A2 only)
    169
    5.11%
    A*AA (A2 only)
    285
    8.61%
    AAA
    360
    10.88%
    AAB
    468
    14.14%
    ABB
    407
    12.30%
    BBB
    180
    5.44%
    BBC
    204
    6.16%
    BCC
    167
    5.05%
    CCC
    58
    1.75%
    CCD
    135
    4.08%
    A*AB (A2 only)
    161
    4.86%
    A*BB (A2 only)
    47
    1.42%
    ABC
    195
    5.89%
    ACC
    49
    1.48%
    Other
    233
    7.04%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmyPilot)
    Sort of lol. I have just finished 2nd year of a joint honours degree with psychology being one of the subjects - this year has predominantly been psychology based (3 out of 4 of the modules).
    I found psychology to be too simple at A level, some theories just didn't make sense to me with the information we were given. I'm hoping it will be much more complex at uni ☺️.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Well I am rubbish at maths so couldn't begin to compare - it's just that psychology (or any other similar course) at uni is a different kettle of fish compared to A2. No more spoon feeding of all the details you need, no mark schemes, few past papers to study etc etc (even though this was not how I studied for my A2s). Not wanting to put you (or anyone) down but it is quite a learning curve you go through at uni to get decent grades - done 2 years and still befuddled at times lol
    (Original post by fefssdf)
    but compared to maths i feel it would be a lot easier !
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmyPilot)
    Well I am rubbish at maths so couldn't begin to compare - it's just that psychology (or any other similar course) at uni is a different kettle of fish compared to A2. No more spoon feeding of all the details you need, no mark schemes, few past papers to study etc etc (even though this was not how I studied for my A2s). Not wanting to put you (or anyone) down but it is quite a learning curve you go through at uni to get decent grades - done 2 years and still befuddled at times lol
    thanks for the insight !
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Some bits are very interesting - particularly enjoyed cognitive and neuropsychology. Are you going to uni this time? If so where you heading/what do you need grade wise?
    (Original post by Elle_w)
    I found psychology to be too simple at A level, some theories just didn't make sense to me with the information we were given. I'm hoping it will be much more complex at uni ☺️.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmyPilot)
    Some bits are very interesting - particularly enjoyed cognitive and neuropsychology. Are you going to uni this time? If so where you heading/what do you need grade wise?
    I'm hoping to get into Winchester, they want 300 ucas points so ideally I want to get an A* in psych, B in biology and C in chemistry.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    good luck
    (Original post by Elle_w)
    I'm hoping to get into Winchester, they want 300 ucas points so ideally I want to get an A* in psych, B in biology and C in chemistry.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmyPilot)
    good luck
    Thank you! 😆


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Been stalking this thread for a while but now it is probably time to come out of denial and accept that Results Day is so close!

    How are people going to approach remarks with the new changes that have come in? If you are a mark or two away from a boundary in an essay subject, is there any point applying for a review?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aquaxo)
    Been stalking this thread for a while but now it is probably time to come out of denial and accept that Results Day is so close!

    How are people going to approach remarks with the new changes that have come in? If you are a mark or two away from a boundary in an essay subject, is there any point applying for a review?
    Definitely go for it or the pain of regret will be there

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aquaxo)
    Been stalking this thread for a while but now it is probably time to come out of denial and accept that Results Day is so close!

    How are people going to approach remarks with the new changes that have come in? If you are a mark or two away from a boundary in an essay subject, is there any point applying for a review?
    If you need the reveiw then go for it, if not then don't worry IMO. you can still get marked changed, even in essay subjects it all depends but I wouldn't risk it unless you have to.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I still don't fully understand it... Would, say, a 5 mark difference be counted as a 'mistake' and so be corrected? Or would it just be 'opinion-based' and so ignored by the reviewer?

    Why couldn't they have just waited until we were off the conveyer belt before introducing the changes
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aquaxo)
    I still don't fully understand it... Would, say, a 5 mark difference be counted as a 'mistake' and so be corrected? Or would it just be 'opinion-based' and so ignored by the reviewer?

    Why couldn't they have just waited until we were off the conveyer belt before introducing the changes (
    It could be either.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    It could be either.
    I meant specifically for an essay-based question. If this is the case then it seems pretty difficult to regulate! I understand that some students benefited from one or two dubious extra marks last year, but the whole change seems at the detriment of those who take essay subjects. The remark system was initially imposed to counter the variability of 'harshness' between markers - making it so that differences in opinion are no longer a suitable reason for a genuine review seems completely counterproductive. Surely the majority of problems that exist lie in the initial marking system, given that those who are assigned to remarking are supposedly the best of the best.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aquaxo)
    I meant specifically for an essay-based question. If this is the case then it seems pretty difficult to regulate! I understand that some students benefited from one or two dubious extra marks last year, but the whole change seems at the detriment of those who take essay subjects. The remark system was initially imposed to counter the variability of 'harshness' between markers - making it so that differences in opinion are no longer a suitable reason for a genuine review seems completely counterproductive. Surely the majority of problems that exist lie in the initial marking system, given that those who are assigned to remarking are supposedly the best of the best.
    it could be either, if the marks were clearly wrong then you'll get them, if they were boarder line you won't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This is just speculation on my part, but I expect that in questions that are marked by 'levels' based marking, then the mark will only be changed in a remark if the underlying level is also changed.
    Offline

    2
    Good luck to those who are getting their results soon
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Guys, regarding changes to remarks...:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...f_Practice.pdf

    Highlights/some key sections/excerpts from the document (sigh...):
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Marking and Moderation Errors: The awarding of a mark or the arrival at an outcome of Moderation which could not reasonably have been given or arrived at given the evidence generated by the Learner(s) (and for Moderation, the centre’s marking of that evidence), the criteria against which Learners’ performance is differentiated and any procedures of the awarding organisation in relation to Moderation or marking, including in particular where the awarding of a mark or outcome of moderation is based on: an Administrative Error, a failure to apply such criteria and procedures to the evidence generated by the Learner(s) where that failure did not involve the exercise of academic judgment, or an unreasonable exercise of academic judgment.

    Marking Errors must be corrected but reasonable marks must not be changed
    The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with our proposals that marks should only be changed on review where the mark could not reasonably have been given – when a Marking Error had been made. Almost all of those who agreed said this was the fairest approach for all.Those who disagreed put forward a range of reasons. Arguments were made that a student should be given the highest mark possible, that it is difficult to define ‘reasonable’, and that the only fair process would be a blind re-mark.Some school representatives said that if, on review, a mark could only be changed if it was unreasonable, then far fewer reviews would result in a mark change than now.We are clear that Marking Errors must be corrected (however small or large the change of mark will be), but if no Marking Error was made an original mark should not be replaced. If such marks were changed then candidates who did not ask for a review of their marks would be unfairly disadvantaged relative to those who did.We are consulting on statutory guidance to exam boards setting out how we expect them to identify Marking Errors, including cases where markers have exercised their academic judgement in an unreasonable way.

    Extending the grounds for appeal to include that a Marking Error had been made that had not been corrected on review
    School groups welcomed our proposal to allow an appeal on the grounds that a Marking Error had been made, that had not been corrected on review, as well as on the grounds of a procedural failure, but questioned what the process would look like. Exam boards were concerned that extending the grounds for appeal in this way could increase appeals to an unmanageable volume and unrealistically raise the expectations of centres.In light of this feedback, we have decided that for summer 2016 we will only require exam boards to consider appeals on the basis that they did not apply procedures consistently or that procedures were not followed properly and fairly.We are consulting on our proposal to require exam boards to pilot the new ground for appeal in a small number of qualifications this year. This would allow schools and colleges to ask for an appeal on the grounds that a Marking or Moderation Error had been made. We propose the exam boards should pilot the new ground in three qualifications: A level mathematics, A level geography and A level religious studies. Experiences from this pilot will help evaluate the impact of the change and help schools and colleges understand how appeals on this new ground would work.In light of our analysis of the outcomes of the pilot, we will revisit our proposal, making any necessary changes and then make further decisions on which grounds of appeal will be available for all subjects for 2017 and beyond.

    Remove the automatic protection for candidates who received an incorrect result
    Responses to this proposal were mixed. Some respondents supported our proposal to remove the automatic protection currently provided for candidates who, as a result of Moderation Error, received a higher mark than they should. They said this would allow exam boards to take individual circumstances into account but noted that there were times when candidates should be protected. Some said that candidates given a higher mark should be allowed to keep it.We do not consider it fair for a candidate who was given a higher result than their performance deserved to automatically keep that result purely because the error was discovered through a review of moderation. This protection does not automatically exist for candidates advantaged by errors identified through other means.We will remove the automatic protection for candidates who receive a higher mark than they should have done. We do not suggest that all wrong marks should be changed. Exam boards’ decisions should depend on a number of factors that we will set out in guidance, on which we have already consulted.

    Further areas on which we are consulting
    We are consulting on:
    • specific requirements to train and monitor original markers and moderators
    • the timescale for requiring marked GCSE scripts to be made available
    • a framework for minimum timescales relating to deadlines for requests for reviews and appeals
    • guidance about how Marking Errors should be identified
    • piloting the extended ground for appeal in A level mathematics, geography and religious studies in 2016
    • when schools and colleges should be required to tell their students the marks of teacher-marked assessment.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MoonVirgo)
    Guys, regarding changes to remarks...:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...f_Practice.pdf

    Highlights/some key sections/excepts from the document (sigh...):
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Marking and Moderation Errors: The awarding of a mark or the arrival at an outcome of Moderation which could not reasonably have been given or arrived at given the evidence generated by the Learner(s) (and for Moderation, the centre’s marking of that evidence), the criteria against which Learners’ performance is differentiated and any procedures of the awarding organisation in relation to Moderation or marking, including in particular where the awarding of a mark or outcome of moderation is based on: an Administrative Error, a failure to apply such criteria and procedures to the evidence generated by the Learner(s) where that failure did not involve the exercise of academic judgment, or an unreasonable exercise of academic judgment.

    Marking Errors must be corrected but reasonable marks must not be changed
    The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with our proposals that marks should only be changed on review where the mark could not reasonably have been given – when a Marking Error had been made. Almost all of those who agreed said this was the fairest approach for all.Those who disagreed put forward a range of reasons. Arguments were made that a student should be given the highest mark possible, that it is difficult to define ‘reasonable’, and that the only fair process would be a blind re-mark.Some school representatives said that if, on review, a mark could only be changed if it was unreasonable, then far fewer reviews would result in a mark change than now.We are clear that Marking Errors must be corrected (however small or large the change of mark will be), but if no Marking Error was made an original mark should not be replaced. If such marks were changed then candidates who did not ask for a review of their marks would be unfairly disadvantaged relative to those who did.We are consulting on statutory guidance to exam boards setting out how we expect them to identify Marking Errors, including cases where markers have exercised their academic judgement in an unreasonable way.

    Extending the grounds for appeal to include that a Marking Error had been made that had not been corrected on review
    School groups welcomed our proposal to allow an appeal on the grounds that a Marking Error had been made, that had not been corrected on review, as well as on the grounds of a procedural failure, but questioned what the process would look like. Exam boards were concerned that extending the grounds for appeal in this way could increase appeals to an unmanageable volume and unrealistically raise the expectations of centres.In light of this feedback, we have decided that for summer 2016 we will only require exam boards to consider appeals on the basis that they did not apply procedures consistently or that procedures were not followed properly and fairly.We are consulting on our proposal to require exam boards to pilot the new ground for appeal in a small number of qualifications this year. This would allow schools and colleges to ask for an appeal on the grounds that a Marking or Moderation Error had been made. We propose the exam boards should pilot the new ground in three qualifications: A level mathematics, A level geography and A level religious studies. Experiences from this pilot will help evaluate the impact of the change and help schools and colleges understand how appeals on this new ground would work.In light of our analysis of the outcomes of the pilot, we will revisit our proposal, making any necessary changes and then make further decisions on which grounds of appeal will be available for all subjects for 2017 and beyond.

    Remove the automatic protection for candidates who received an incorrect result
    Responses to this proposal were mixed. Some respondents supported our proposal to remove the automatic protection currently provided for candidates who, as a result of Moderation Error, received a higher mark than they should. They said this would allow exam boards to take individual circumstances into account but noted that there were times when candidates should be protected. Some said that candidates given a higher mark should be allowed to keep it.We do not consider it fair for a candidate who was given a higher result than their performance deserved to automatically keep that result purely because the error was discovered through a review of moderation. This protection does not automatically exist for candidates advantaged by errors identified through other means.We will remove the automatic protection for candidates who receive a higher mark than they should have done. We do not suggest that all wrong marks should be changed. Exam boards’ decisions should depend on a number of factors that we will set out in guidance, on which we have already consulted.

    Further areas on which we are consulting
    We are consulting on:
    • specific requirements to train and monitor original markers and moderators
    • the timescale for requiring marked GCSE scripts to be made available
    • a framework for minimum timescales relating to deadlines for requests for reviews and appeals
    • guidance about how Marking Errors should be identified
    • piloting the extended ground for appeal in A level mathematics, geography and religious studies in 2016
    • when schools and colleges should be required to tell their students the marks of teacher-marked assessment.

    Thank you for this! :-)

    Do people think this is fair?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aquaxo)
    The remark system was initially imposed to counter the variability of 'harshness' between markers
    Not true at all. In theory all markers should be marking to a single agreed standard. I appreciate that this doesn't always happen in practice, but it's certainly not the intention and it's not the reason why re-marks exist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get this change in remarks business - surely the system SHOULD be exactly the same as it was before?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Help with your A-levels

    All the essentials

    The adventure begins mug

    Student life: what to expect

    What it's really like going to uni

    Rosette

    Essay expert

    Learn to write like a pro with our ultimate essay guide.

    Uni match

    Uni match

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course for you

    Study planner

    Create a study plan

    Get your head around what you need to do and when with the study planner tool.

    Study planner

    Resources by subject

    Everything from mind maps to class notes.

    Hands typing

    Degrees without fees

    Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

    A student doing homework

    Study tips from A* students

    Students who got top grades in their A-levels share their secrets

    Study help links and info

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threadsRules and posting guidelines

    Sponsored content:

    HEAR

    HEAR

    Find out how a Higher Education Achievement Report can help you prove your achievements.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.