I kind of have this thought in the back of my mind. It seems slightly pointless but here goes.
In a conventional public examination, a normal distribution curve is used in grading. So, an a* is reserved for the top candidates, whilst the majority receive B's and C's. So it seems logical that not everyone can do good, because if everyone scored high marks, it would just mean higher grade boundaries. Thus can we assume that people who do well, do so at the expense of people who receive poorer grades?
Surely not everyone can do well?
Exam success question Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by starwarsjedi123; 04-06-2016 at 20:06. Reason: jus innih
- 04-06-2016 20:05
Online21ReputationRep:Very Important Poster
- Very Important Poster
- 06-06-2016 17:24
- Political Ambassador
- 06-06-2016 17:31
Grade boundaries generally don't shift more than a mark or two year by year. They are, however, set so that (I believe) a certain percentage of students get each grade, as you said.
It's confusing because normally we think about a D grade as being "you're bad at this subject" when actually it's more like "you're worse than most of the other people taking this subject" and an A* is like "you're a lot better than most other people taking this subject".
A B grade at GCSE is so so, but a B in the same subject at A level is far harder to get, and means a lot more than a B at GCSE - students who get A*s in certain subjects at GCSE can still end up getting "just" a B at A level - because they're not testing how good you are at the subject alone, they're testing how much better or worse you are than everyone else - and at A level only people who are decent will take a subject, so the competition is higher.Last edited by KomradeKorbyn; 06-06-2016 at 17:32.