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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Case in point: In an mathematics examination, 70 is ****; in history, 70 is excellent. You cannot really solve this problem because the marks were calculated very differently. The objectiveness, the definition of 'correctness', or even merely the fact that given an essay, no normal human being would grade it 98% regardless of how good it is.
    No, at all the universities I've been at, the percentages are standardised. I thought this was common practice across the UK.

    <40 = fail
    40-49 = 3rd
    50-59 = 2.2
    60-69 = 2.1
    70+ = 1st

    Of course 70% from one institution or department may not be intellectually equivalent to 70% from another, but that's a whole other can or worms.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RVNmax)
    You missed out those who didn't even pass, i.e. dropped out.
    Are those not included in the statistics?Well that adds another conditional probability of people having to be good enough to pass the earlier years.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeedCanKill)
    With 47% of the population having a degree, the value of a degree is laughable. I honestly think three years work experience in your desired area of work > a degree. A degree teaches you how to quote others intelligence, nothing more.
    You learn from other people in a job. You are going to be **** all use as a nuclear technician if you haven't learned from the work of previous physicists. It doesn't mater whether you learned it from a degree or on the job apprenticeship. The reason human beings have this thing called civilization is due to our ability to stand on top of the shoulders of giants. It means you don;t have to start from scratch, like an octopus.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    To be honest, I put very little effort in for my 2.2 and I leave it off my CV partly for that reason (but mostly because it isn't relevant or helpful for the jobs I apply for). To me a third implies both laziness AND lack of aptitude.
    I failed my second year and then started another degree afresh... still put my 1st year 'pass'/'cert. of higher ed.' on my CV as I have got some selling points from that time.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    No it is not STEM degrees are worth much more than degrees in the arts and are much harder too and you can get high scores in essays my sister does Psychology and got 95% in one essay she is averaging about 79% I think for her course.You can obtain 100% for any module otherwise it would just be marked out of 70% the fact that it is harder for arts students to get high scores than maths students is to account for how much more valuable stem subjects are and how much more skilled you have to be to do well in them and that's why they ask for pretty much publishable standard for arts essays for top scores.
    Maybe if you'd studied the arts, you would've understood the art of punctuation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Maybe if you've studied the arts, you would've understood the art of punctuation.
    Surely it should be "if you would have" should it not?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    No, at all the universities I've been at, the percentages are standardised. I thought this was common practice across the UK.

    <40 = fail
    40-49 = 3rd
    50-59 = 2.2
    60-69 = 2.1
    70+ = 1st

    Of course 70% from one institution or department may not be intellectually equivalent to 70% from another, but that's a whole other can or worms.
    It is not all standardised - your scale does not apply to Open University. I don't know if they are the only exception.

    Ever if they were all standardised across the country, you will still need to make it comparable internationally. Having broader range makes it a lot easier to make comparison (ie is a 2:1 3.6 in GPA in the US? or is 64 exactly an 3.37 in the US?), the same goes to institution to institution and discipline to discipline comparisons. Since the scores are subjectively given and come from different modes of assessments, it's a lot easier to assert that a 2:1 at University of X is similar to a 2:1 at University of Y; but not so much with a specific score '65'.

    The even bigger issue is that I didn't say we should get rid of scores altogether. The post I quoted argued that we should get rid of class honours together on the basis that class honours are taking away detailed information. The fact is they are not - they are merely additional information. The scores are still there if anyone wishes to compare them, which is better than the American GPA or nothing (in some universities they do have honours, but that's the minority) system.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by reallydontknow)
    Surely it should be "if you would have" should it not?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    'If you would have' is wrong.

    But I should've said 'if you had studied'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    'If you would have' is wrong.

    But I should've said 'if you had studied'.
    Why is that wrong out of interest?

    [e] It's fine, Google is so useful


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by reallydontknow)
    Why is that wrong out of interest?

    [e] It's fine, Google is so useful


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Cheers.

    It's a common mistake tho, and you probably would've realised that it sounded weird had you read the entire sentence aloud (which would've gotten two 'would've's).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Alot of people have taken exception to my comment, but it is all true. It's just keeping up with the Jones'
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    It is not all standardised - your scale does not apply to Open University. I don't know if they are the only exception.

    Ever if they were all standardised across the country, you will still need to make it comparable internationally. Having broader range makes it a lot easier to make comparison (ie is a 2:1 3.6 in GPA in the US? or is 64 exactly an 3.37 in the US?), the same goes to institution to institution and discipline to discipline comparisons. Since the scores are subjectively given and come from different modes of assessments, it's a lot easier to assert that a 2:1 at University of X is similar to a 2:1 at University of Y; but not so much with a specific score '65'.

    The even bigger issue is that I didn't say we should get rid of scores altogether. The post I quoted argued that we should get rid of class honours together on the basis that class honours are taking away detailed information. The fact is they are not - they are merely additional information. The scores are still there if anyone wishes to compare them, which is better than the American GPA or nothing (in some universities they do have honours, but that's the minority) system.
    If they were standardised though about 95% of people at Oxbridge would get a First and most of them wouldn't have to study for it and you would see similar trends at other Russell Group Universities too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeedCanKill)
    Alot of people have taken exception to my comment, but it is all true. It's just keeping up with the Jones'
    If it's true then you should be able to defend it, yet yoyu have not and just gnored all the objections.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    If it's true then you should be able to defend it, yet yoyu have not and just gnored all the objections.
    A degree is no longer valuable. Almost everyone and their pet dog has one these days, to be distinguished you need a PhD at least. When 47% of the population has one, it loses value. Fact.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeedCanKill)
    A degree is no longer valuable. Almost everyone and their pet dog has one these days, to be distinguished you need a PhD at least. When 47% of the population has one, it loses value. Fact.
    Saying fact after something does not make it true. Many degrees are still extremely valueable and a requirement for many jobs.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeedCanKill)
    A degree is no longer valuable. Almost everyone and their pet dog has one these days, to be distinguished you need a PhD at least. When 47% of the population has one, it loses value. Fact.
    It's not a fact because by that time people will just be expecting a degree from every applicant. If it 'loses value', people won't be asking for it; instead, it'll be more important than ever before.

    Also, not 47% of the population has a degree. Around 18% of the population have a degree or equivalent. If you count only honours degree, it'll be even lower.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Eventually we will just send off the £27,000.00 and get to download our first certificate and save all this studying hassle.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainDrain)
    Eventually we will just send off the £27,000.00 and get to download our first certificate and save all this studying hassle.
    No we won't.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    No we won't.
    Was being a tad sarcastic .... but doling out firsts certainly improves a universities rating.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Grade classifications are illogical. Someone with 59% is classed the same as someone with 50%, yet differently from someone with 60%, when clearly they are closer to the latter.

    From a statistical point of view, you lose information by converting point estimates into fuzzy categories.

    Distributions of grades do not have peaks corresponding to the classifications. If they did, you could kind of justify them. But you tend to get some kind of normal distribution. In this case, it makes no statistical sense to set ordinal categories. If you did this kind of thing in science, you would get criticized.
    People say this and i agree but there is nothing stopping you from putting your exact percentage on your CV. Indeed i certainly would if i was close to another classification.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    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

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