Should there be more degree classifications above a 1st, like 1:1, 1:2? Watch

Zara~Barnes
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
To be completely open, I'm barely going to scrape a first myself after an unholy second year where I went to class maybe twice and averaged 60ish. So under a classification system revision, I myself would end up with a lower first class, and so such a revision would not benefit me personally.

However, my final year marks have all been historic highs for the modules I am taking; floating between the high 80s and 90s, and this got me thinking.

Even though a revision of the system wouldn't benefit me personally, I do think it's unfair for those hard workers who've maintained an 80+ average, and I am sure they exist, to be lumped in with me. Someone who forgot she was even at Uni for the first two years. How can the system justify granting the same classification to a 71, as to a 90? That doesn't seem just, given the sheer level of work they would have had to put in consistently for three years. (And I would know, scoring 90 par on all first semester finals almost killed me, and I slept for three days solid afterwards.)

Just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on this?
0
reply
Moonstruck16
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by Zara~Barnes)
To be completely open, I'm barely going to scrape a first myself after an unholy second year where I went to class maybe twice and averaged 60ish. So under a classification system revision, I myself would end up with a lower first class, and so such a revision would not benefit me personally.

However, my final year marks have all been historic highs for the modules I am taking; floating between the high 80s and 90s, and this got me thinking.

Even though a revision of the system wouldn't benefit me personally, I do think it's unfair for those hard workers who've maintained an 80+ average, and I am sure they exist, to be lumped in with me. Someone who forgot she was even at Uni for the first two years. How can the system justify granting the same classification to a 71, as to a 90? That doesn't seem just, given the sheer level of work they would have had to put in consistently for three years. (And I would know, scoring 90 par on all first semester finals almost killed me, and I slept for three days solid afterwards.)

Just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on this?
The degree classification worked fine before hundreds of 'universities' popped up all over the country and anyone and their dog went to university. Also it is known that certain universities pretty much handout firsts in comparison to other universities.

If you get a first then well done. But your grade at this stage in your life is hardly that important. As long as it's a minimum 2:1 most people don't care except for yourself and your family.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by Zara~Barnes)
To be completely open, I'm barely going to scrape a first myself after an unholy second year where I went to class maybe twice and averaged 60ish. So under a classification system revision, I myself would end up with a lower first class, and so such a revision would not benefit me personally.

However, my final year marks have all been historic highs for the modules I am taking; floating between the high 80s and 90s, and this got me thinking.

Even though a revision of the system wouldn't benefit me personally, I do think it's unfair for those hard workers who've maintained an 80+ average, and I am sure they exist, to be lumped in with me. Someone who forgot she was even at Uni for the first two years. How can the system justify granting the same classification to a 71, as to a 90? That doesn't seem just, given the sheer level of work they would have had to put in consistently for three years. (And I would know, scoring 90 par on all first semester finals almost killed me, and I slept for three days solid afterwards.)

Just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on this?
This is essentially the same argument as the A* at GCSE/A-level - that a plain 'A' grade didn't adequately distinguish the outstanding from the mere brilliant. I have some sympathy for this, but as with the A*, I wonder whether more of it is to do with grade inflation. First class degrees used to be fairly uncommon; now they seem ten a penny. And that's not to denigrate those who've worked hard to achieve a first, but rather to recognize that it is very much an achievement and shouldn't be diluted by having 25% of a cohort getting a first class degree.
0
reply
Zara~Barnes
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Reality Check)
This is essentially the same argument as the A* at GCSE/A-level - that a plain 'A' grade didn't adequately distinguish the outstanding from the mere brilliant. I have some sympathy for this, but as with the A*, I wonder whether more of it is to do with grade inflation. First class degrees used to be fairly uncommon; now they seem ten a penny. And that's not to denigrate those who've worked hard to achieve a first, but rather to recognize that it is very much an achievement and shouldn't be diluted by having 25% of a cohort getting a first class degree.
That is exactly my point, and I am glad I am not alone in my concerns about this. I believe only around 10% of students at my university get firsts, not sure how that compares to others in the Russel group, but it does seem incredibly odd that so many people seem to be getting firsts, and furthermore there is no distinguishing between those who score >70, and those who score >90.

Grade inflation firsts you would expect to settle in the >70, but below 75 range, and so additional classifications would allow some sort of filtering mechanism.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by Zara~Barnes)
That is exactly my point, and I am glad I am not alone in my concerns about this. I believe only around 10% of students at my university get firsts, not sure how that compares to others in the Russel group, but it does seem incredibly odd that so many people seem to be getting firsts, and furthermore there is no distinguishing between those who score >70, and those who score >90.
Yes, exactly. And there is a huge difference between 71 and 90, given the law of diminishing returns after about 65. To be awarded 90 in a final year assessment is outstanding and it deserves to be marked as such. There is an argument that the marks will also be on the transcript, so haven't been totally sidelined, but that doesn't change the fact that at face value, the 71 and 90 candidate both have a 'first class' degree.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Agree on class/grad inflation. At the other end the dividing line between 2:1 and 2:2 is akin to pass/fail and there is virtually no way to ever correct that. No amount of postgrad will change things.
0
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Zara~Barnes)
To be completely open, I'm barely going to scrape a first myself after an unholy second year where I went to class maybe twice and averaged 60ish. So under a classification system revision, I myself would end up with a lower first class, and so such a revision would not benefit me personally.

However, my final year marks have all been historic highs for the modules I am taking; floating between the high 80s and 90s, and this got me thinking.

Even though a revision of the system wouldn't benefit me personally, I do think it's unfair for those hard workers who've maintained an 80+ average, and I am sure they exist, to be lumped in with me. Someone who forgot she was even at Uni for the first two years. How can the system justify granting the same classification to a 71, as to a 90? That doesn't seem just, given the sheer level of work they would have had to put in consistently for three years. (And I would know, scoring 90 par on all first semester finals almost killed me, and I slept for three days solid afterwards.)

Just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on this?
No.

80, let alone 90, is not possible for non scientific subjects.

Even so, it's much easier to get 75+ in non RG unis, so that would be unfair in itself.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
Which is why universities don't just provide a simple degree classification and transcript anymore but provide a detailed HEAR https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/con...R-The-Benefits
0
reply
Zara~Barnes
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by _Fergo)
No.

80, let alone 90, is not possible for non scientific subjects.

Even so, it's much easier to get 75+ in non RG unis, so that would be unfair in itself.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Please do not generalise your own experience as law. I do economics, either a social science or a humanity, but definitely not a 'scientific subject'. I can assure you that 80 or 90 is quite possible - not probable, but there are those rare few.

The latter I cannot comment on, as I have only attended an RG university and so have no base for comparison. You are correct that 75+ here is extremely difficult though, most score fifties and up to the mid sixties whenever lecturers bother to draw grade distributions after mid terms.

The reason I would suggest a classification revision, is precisely for those RG students who do excel and score 80/90. What would also quickly become apparent is the degree of grade inflation at less prestigious institutions, if RGs were turning out 1:2's and there were a disproportionate legion of 1:1 holders leaving the likes of Leeds Trinity.
0
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Zara~Barnes)
Please do not generalise your own experience as law. I do economics, either a social science or a humanity, but definitely not a 'scientific subject'. I can assure you that 80 or 90 is quite possible - not probable, but there are those rare few.

The latter I cannot comment on, as I have only attended a RG university and so have no base for comparison. You are correct that 75+ here is extremely difficult though, most score fifties and up to the mid sixties whenever lecturers bother to draw grade distributions after mid terms.

The reason I would suggest a classification revision, is precisely for those RG students who do excel and score 80/90. What would also quickly become apparent is the degree of grade inflation at less prestigious institutions, if RGs were turning out 1:2's and there were a disproportionate legion of 1:1 holders leaving the likes of Leeds Trinity.
But it is a rule in certain cases. Some universities have an absolute cap at 75-77 even for the best possible scripts.

That is already the cases with regards to 1sts. There's no reason to complicate things when percentages are available.

You got 80-90 is an essay or a maths-based exam?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Zara~Barnes
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by _Fergo)
But it is a rule in certain cases. Some universities have an absolute cap at 75-77 even for the best possible scripts.

That is already the cases with regards to 1sts. There's no reason to complicate things when percentages are available.

You got 80-90 is an essay or a maths-based exam?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Advanced Macro and Economic History 90, Advanced Econometrics 80, International Trade Midterm 97. Only one of those is maths-based, although arguably, there was a mathematics section on the Int. Trade paper.

As stated at the beginning of the thread, however, I am specifically not referring to myself nor my own classification in this scenario. I will get maybe a 72 overall. This is specifically in regards to those few individuals in each year group cohort who do score 80+ overall, who particularly at RG universities surely deserve some sort of recognition beyond the standard first.
0
reply
The Wavefunction
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
Averaging 90 across a degree is so unlikely though. What's the point? Sure you can pull it off over a module or two, but the amount of people capable of maintaining an average that high over an entire degree is so small it would be pointless.

Also, wrt grade inflation could it also be down to the fact that it's getting more and more competitive in post graduate life so people are working harder than previous cohorts?
0
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Zara~Barnes)
Advanced Macro and Economic History 90, Advanced Econometrics 80, International Trade Midterm 97. Only one of those is maths-based, although arguably, there was a mathematics section on the Int. Trade paper.

As stated at the beginning of the thread, however, I am specifically not referring to myself nor my own classification in this scenario. I will get maybe a 72 overall. This is specifically in regards to those few individuals in each year group cohort who do score 80+ overall, who particularly at RG universities surely deserve some sort of recognition beyond the standard first.
What uni is this?

Where I am at least, there is absolutely no chance someone could get a 97 in econ.

But that's what I'm saying. Some unis operate mark caps. In my case, that is 83 and only 1 person out of 430+ will get it for a single module. Overall, the max is 78 (that has historically been obtained) and the next possible grade is 72.

It would be unfair for people to get a higher classification when some unis operate these caps.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by _Fergo)
80, let alone 90, is not possible for non scientific subjects.
This isn't strictly true - someone I was with at Cambridge got 81 in their IA Constitutional Law. True it was exceptional and noteworthy, but it does happen every now and again.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by PQ)
Which is why universities don't just provide a simple degree classification and transcript anymore but provide a detailed HEAR https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/con...R-The-Benefits
Exactly the right page! Thanks
0
reply
Arcane1729
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by 999tigger)
Agree on class/grad inflation. At the other end the dividing line between 2:1 and 2:2 is akin to pass/fail and there is virtually no way to ever correct that. No amount of postgrad will change things.
What do you mean by this?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by Arcane1729)
What do you mean by this?
Theres a mention above about class inflation.
If true, then lower classes become much less use for getting a job.
Subsequent qualifications will not change what you achieved on your first degree and dont make up for it.
0
reply
Zara~Barnes
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by _Fergo)
What uni is this?

Where I am at least, there is absolutely no chance someone could get a 97 in econ.

But that's what I'm saying. Some unis operate mark caps. In my case, that is 83 and only 1 person out of 430+ will get it for a single module. Overall, the max is 78 (that has historically been obtained) and the next possible grade is 72.

It would be unfair for people to get a higher classification when some unis operate these caps.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I am very interested in this grade cap system. Why on earth is that a thing? Yes I completely agree that this would be unfair in a scenario where a higher classification than a first was possible, and would need to be removed in order for the system to function fairly.

I would note that as I mentioned above these were historically high grades, and this scenario is not standard on my course. The next highest grade after mine in macro was 80, and the next highest after that were a smattering of 72s/3s. All of our scripts are externally marked and moderated by academics from another RG university, and so I wonder how they feel awarding such marks, knowing that it would be capped at their home institution. It must be quite annoying for them to award an 80 to a student at one institution if for their comparable course the mark is capped at 77.
0
reply
Arcane1729
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by 999tigger)
Subsequent qualifications will not change what you achieved on your first degree and dont make up for it.
It is precisely this bold part I was asking about. Why not?
0
reply
Zara~Barnes
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by Arcane1729)
It is precisely this bold part I was asking about. Why not?
OP is free to disagree with me on this, but my interpretation of their point was a mixture of the fact that it quite literally does not change your original classification, and that it doesn't change the outcome in a cv filtering system at large firms.

That is, firms who require only a bachelors for the position they are hiring for will filter by bachelor degree classification. If you got a 2:2 you will be sorted into the no pile, irrelevant of the fact you hold a masters.

There is also the idea that certain universities and employers consider a 2:2 with a one year masters to be comparable to a high first.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,501

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (220)
12.45%
Excited (166)
9.39%
Worried (308)
17.43%
Terrified (389)
22.01%
Meh (184)
10.41%
Confused (39)
2.21%
Putting on a brave face (244)
13.81%
Impatient (217)
12.28%

Watched Threads

View All