70% graduates get 2:1s or firsts

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.

You missed out those who didn't even pass, i.e. dropped out.

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.

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.

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've studied the arts, you would've understood the art of punctuation.

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.

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'.

Why is that wrong out of interest?

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


Posted from TSR Mobile

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.