How unis calculate degree classification.....

Former Member

Quite frankly, it sucks.......in hindsight i was too lazy in the 2nd year, but still ended up with 69%, which is ok bcos it only counts for 25% of final grade, the 3rd year is 75%..........so i've been working my arse off this year, again was just on the 69/70% border you need for a 1st, but then my grades got moderated, this has never happened before, and im not talking a percent here or there, but overall average has dropped to 64% now, making it near impossible to get a 1st........so i asked the dept head how this could have happened, bcos uni marking is never that generous in the first place..........and he explained to me that they use standard deviation to adjust grades so that only a certain amount of people get a 1st, (so uni looks credible etc).........now i find this astounding, that my work is not being marked on merit but using some algorithm, at my expense........what's the point of making the effort if they've already decided you ain't getting a first? bastards......... :mad:........it's still possible and i would have to cockup majorly to not get a 2:1, but that's not the point, my work was A grade, but bcos someone else's was slightly better, mine gets downgraded.......incredulous.

Former Member

We get to choose whether to take 25% from the 2nd year or everything from the final year, It's whichever gives us the best marks.

But yes that does seem rather incredulous that they'd lower your marks. I didn't think they did that at degree level, even though I know it's done throughout secondary school days.

littlemissy

Kazbo wrote:

But yes that does seem rather incredulous that they'd lower your marks. I didn't think they did that at degree level, even though I know it's done throughout secondary school days.

Some unis do, some don't.

I think that it is quite a fair way to do it overall. They reward those who worked hard over 2 years rather than those who lazed around and then worked their ass off for the final exams or whatever.

You said it yourself, you were lazy in the second year. You knew the consequences of being lazy.

When they drop the marks by that much it also means that they probably thought that the difficulty of exams / whatever, wasn't as high as in previous years. It would've meant that you were extremely lucky to be in the year you were in therefore, overall, it wouldn't be fair.

Former Member

yeah i was lazy, still got 69% average tho so how can you rule out a 1st? i dont think it's anything to do with that.............exams weren't moderated, because they're not open to interpretation really, whereas with the c/w they really screwed me.........trust me, uni marking is NEVER generous to start with, to lose 6% and 4% in modules is not down to the quality of my work, merely that they cant give more than a certain quota 1sts, i asked the head this is what he said...........so dont' be surprised if you get bumped.

littlemissy

apollo_69 wrote:

merely that they cant give more than a certain quota 1sts, i asked the head this is what he said...........so dont' be surprised if you get bumped.

I can see why they say this too. Like, if everyone can get a first then it sort of makes them less of an achievement / less special.

Uni marking isn't there to be generous either IMO. It is there to see if you can actually do the work. If you are at 69% they are not going to say "well, he was *nearly* there, lets just bump it up." Normally you get the mark you deserve. There *are* ocassions that this isn't the case and that is where the appeal system comes in.

Maybe you were treated harshly, I don't know. If you aren't happy with it then you may be able to appeal.

Former Member

At my uni, we take modules with 120 credits. The first year means nothing. The 2nd year 60 credits are taken (minus best and worst mark), the third year all credits are taken.

Former Member

littlemissy wrote:

I can see why they say this too. Like, if everyone can get a first then it sort of makes them less of an achievement / less special.

Uni marking isn't there to be generous either IMO. It is there to see if you can actually do the work. If you are at 69% they are not going to say "well, he was *nearly* there, lets just bump it up." Normally you get the mark you deserve. There *are* ocassions that this isn't the case and that is where the appeal system comes in.

Maybe you were treated harshly, I don't know. If you aren't happy with it then you may be able to appeal.

lol i don't want bumping up, they are bumping me down to make sure i cannot get a 1st, this is how it looks.........i did the work, got the grades, then it got taken away.........they never moderated any 1st and 2nd year work, but now bcos it really counts towards final grade they bring in their little standard deviation curve, what bollocks.........fair play they have to look credible and not hand out too many 1sts, but the grading should still be done on merit not using standard f'ing deviation........what if they have several clever students in one year? some of them are going to get bumped when they deserve better........

yeah i asked him if i could appeal, no reply what a surprise......

Former Member

i see your point.

If you earned what would be in the marking band of a first, then a first is what you should end up with.

I done think any work should be compared for marking. There should be clear marking bands and which ever you fall into should be the grade you get, no matter how many fell into that band. shrug.

Former Member

If you earned what would be in the marking band of a first, then a first is what you should end up with.

i agree with that statement... but unfortunatly, some universities do only award a certain amount of firsts, etc - its unfair, but its the way life is.

my university does it so that 30% is from the 2nd year, and 70% is from the 3rd year to make your overall degree classification. but tbh, you've got me thinking now becasue i'm not sure if my uni impliments the policy of only handing out so many firsts, 2.1s, 2.2s - etc... but i do know some do. :chin:

Former Member

My uni is 50% second year, 50% third year, and they don't do the standard deviation thing.

I can see why they do it though. If everyone had firsts there would be nothing special about them, like others have said.

Former Member

MoonArcanum wrote:

If everyone had firsts there would be nothing special about them, like others have said.

if they did it fairly though, everyone wouldnt get firsts. if they classified a first as 80%+ then i doubt many people would get it, and it would mean they would have to work so hard to get there.

Former Member

We've been told if we don't get a 1st for our final year project there's no chance we'll come out with a 1st...nice eh saying that should only equate to 40% of the year.

littlemissy

Kazbo wrote:

We've been told if we don't get a 1st for our final year project there's no chance we'll come out with a 1st...nice eh saying that should only equate to 40% of the year.

But the final year project is the big one. We were told similar. I think that is fair enough to be honest.

Former Member

I can see why you're upset Apollo, but again especially in Arts subjects grading is never a clear cut science. So you have an average of say 69, or perhaps 69.5 per cent overall. Sounds dead petty, but that is still short of a 1st by 0.5 per cent. At my Uni they told me on graduation marking borders were at th exam board and unis discretion, but to be sure of a 1st YOU HAVE TO GET 70 per cent. Say your average was 70 dead or more than you'd really have a case. Normally say you had an average of 58 it could get pushed up to 60 to put you in the 2:1 bracket, this is teh common practice, but also sometimes unis make it start the other way they can push you down 1 or 2 per cent (remember you do have to be remoderated with the outside exam board's opinion taken into account.) So say you had and average of 61, if they feel the overall standard (yours included) is low then you could move down 1 or 2 marks giving 59, which would land you with a 2:2. And so on. It's all quite political really.Also unis don't always undermark or whatever. You know what the real biggest factor is of getting a nice grade SUCKING UP TO YOUR TUTORS/ chooding a dissertation project that you know will set them on fire, You need to be in tune. I did a degree in French and Spanish and wrote about the phenomenom of immigration in Paris (Ile de France) it was hot, but after my oral exam I listened outside the door to hear what my soanish tecaher thought of my rendition of my research in Spanish and he said great spanish, but hated her topic...you know those blasted immigrats etc etc...exactly....lower mark here we come. Make sure you set your tutors on fire with your sychophantic ways and always hand stuff inon time and you'll be well away. People love consistently fawning fools. Good Luck tho!

Former Member

littlemissy wrote:

But the final year project is the big one. We were told similar. I think that is fair enough to be honest.

But seeing as we do 6 modules in the final year, 2 of them being taken up by the project, why should it be that if we only get say a 2:1 in that but 80%+ or whatever in the other modules we shouldn't get a 1st since overall we will have 1st marks?

Former Member

bacon wrote:

Everyone knows a first from one uni is not necessarily equivalent to a first from another (say Oxford vs a small polytechnic type uni) so maybe a 2:1 from your uni will have just as much clout as you desire.

They are meant to be though these days.

Former Member

Personally I would say it is harder to get a first from a normal uni (as opposed to Oxbridge) as you have less direct contact with tutors, and larger class groups. Also library facilities are not as good.

Former Member

bacon wrote:

what are?

1st's from one uni equivalent to 1st's from any other uni in the country.

It might be easier due to teaching hours or group sizes at some uni's rather than others but all degreeas are meant to be of the same standard.

Former Member

mazza wrote:

I can see why you're upset Apollo, but again especially in Arts subjects grading is never a clear cut science. So you have an average of say 69, or perhaps 69.5 per cent overall. Sounds dead petty, but that is still short of a 1st by 0.5 per cent. At my Uni they told me on graduation marking borders were at th exam board and unis discretion, but to be sure of a 1st YOU HAVE TO GET 70 per cent. Say your average was 70 dead or more than you'd really have a case.......................

Make sure you set your tutors on fire with your sychophantic ways and always hand stuff inon time and you'll be well away. People love consistently fawning fools. Good Luck tho!

well it's not an art subject so i don't think it's open to that much interpretation, especially not 6% worth, that implies the mark was quite generous first time, which they never are........

and my uni has said if you have average of 69.5% that will get rounded up to 70% as that's how rounding works, which means a 1st..........to be pedantic i was on 69.7% after the second year, so technically that's a 1st...........

and another poster mentioned how i was scraping a 1st, yes that's true, but with 69% after only half the 3rd year gone i would say a 1st is still in definite reach if i kick arse in this final semester, so i do think i have a case........or should i say was cos its now down to 64%..........i will be pissed if my final grade is 69% after the moderation from this year, as that just proves the marking is cynical........

thanks for the advice tho, i have handed EVERY bit of work on time so that's not a problem, and i think FYP has potential for a 1st, i've already built it so it's all down to the writeup, 70 pages of headaches........

Former Member

All exams are marked based on "pass quotas", eitehr directly or indirectly. The logic (understandably) is that everyone is getting high marks, then the exam was too easy.

seems fair to me.

Former Member

for the last time, they didn't touch my exam results, they bumped down my c/w........and it's the same damn c/w they set every year so it's not too easy, it's the same.......

Former Member

apollo_69 wrote:

for the last time, they didn't touch my exam results, they bumped down my c/w........and it's the same damn c/w they set every year so it's not too easy, it's the same.......

it's the same principle though. if everyone is getting above average marks, then they assume the marking was too lenient and bump everyone down a bit. it's not really about having lots of clever people in one year, so not getting the grade you deserve, there are too many people moderated for that to really make a difference.

and also it's the whole principle behind moderation.

i think it's fair. it does happen to everyone

Former Member

"more weight" does not =" a higher standard". Snobbery does not = fact.

Former Member

bacon wrote:

i think that's a bit naive; a first from oxbridge clearly has more weight than a first from say anglia polytechnic.

Degrees are moderated same as A-Level's and GCSE's. What you have just said is the same as people who say going to a grammar school has more weight than a comprehensive school. In the past it did matter and make a difference, these days it doesn't.

Former Member

Actually baon, I'd ike to disagree I think that's a bit harsh. Though what you say overall Oxford should have a higher standard of yearly intake overall, therefore resulting in more competition, generally higher standards and more respected degrees, what we are all discussing really should be department-led. Here's an example: now Bradford University is only middling when it comes to the league table of universities, but specific departments outstrip far more quality universities overall. For example, Bradford has what is considered the best pharmacy degree in the country (people come over from Northern Ireland/Ireland to take it instead of going to Trinity or wherever. Also Kings College, London offers phramacy and optometry, but people graduating from Bradford un these two same subjects are more desirable to emplyers as teh course is very well-respected and industry endorsed. If we break things down department by department some quite mediocre universities overall, do often come out smelling of roses. So when we want to qualify a 1st we also have to qualify in terms of quality the reputation of the department, no? Think about that one.

Former Member

Did mazza study at Bratfud? :chin:

Former Member

bacon wrote:

Btw i am not attending a snobbish uni. But I am also not blinkered by pride from the real world. Rankings clearly do matter.

Then why when I've asked this same question to people at IBM, Intel, GSK, BAS they've all said they don't see the need to differentiate and it's absolutely rubbish these days anyway. In fact they prefer people from the ex poly's because it's shown that they've worked harder and come on in leaps and bounds since leaving school than those who went to red brick uni's where in the main, they already had decent grades and a good basic understanding.

The university rankings take far more into account thanthe quality of the course. It's based on teaching quality, research, unemployment, student /staff ratio, dropout rate, and 1sts/2:1s acheived. Where the hell in that lot is the course even really judged? It isn't because courses are moderated to ensure they are of equal levels throughout universties.