interestrateripoff Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 One fudge is that pure marks can be 'overridden' by 'preponderances'. I.e. if you have a majority of module marks that are 70, and yet your mean is 68, you still get a First. Flexible targets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 Grant Shapps went to an ex poly uni - look how well he's done. I'm beginning to get the suspicion that most of us are inept. I can't remember the paper title but I read something awhile back that only a few individuals excel at work the vast majority are below mediocre. It may be that the vast majority have realised they are never going to progress so just accept it and do the bare minimum, why push yourself further in such a circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearwithasorehead Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Flexible targets? What I should have said is 'are overridden' - it's not flexible but automatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 One fudge is that pure marks can be 'overridden' by 'preponderances'. I.e. if you have a majority of module marks that are 70, and yet your mean is 68, you still get a First. At Leeds the term used was 'exit velocity', and was a criterion for a discretionary upgrade, although your final year 2/3 weighted mark still had to be in the discretion zone (i.e. between 69.0 and 69.4 for a first and 59 and 59.4 for a 2:1) in order for you to be eligible for it. If it was, there would be a discussion at the degree classification meeting, in which the student's complete spread of marks was shown on a screen and the assembled academics discussed whether to award the higher classification. In the seven years of these meetings I attended, the upgrade was given in around, I'd guess, 80% of cases, with 'exit velocity' (i.e. the student's overall performance was significantly stronger in year 3 than in year 2) frequently being cited as the main reason. Where the upgrade wasn't given, the main reason cited was usually either poor attendance or only having 100 credits at year 1 (out of 120 credits - usually six 20-credit modules, depending on the programme - you only have to pass 100 in year 1 to progress. Weaker students failing their elective module and not bothering to do the retake was very common, but was seen as a reason not to upgrade if they ended up in a discretion zone at the end of their programme). That's just crazy, when I did mine in the late 90's the 3rd year marks where the 2/3 weighted. In theory by the 3rd year you should know what's required and your marks should be improving. Sounds like a toss off, the only saving grace would be if the 2nd/3rd were equally rigorous but I'm guessing that's not the case. Correct - I know of no UK HEI among the three I've taught at and two I external examined, at which the level of academic attainment per credit is formally supposed to be the same at levels 2 and 3. That is the justification for the 'teminal velocity' criterion above, i.e. recognition of the fact that improving your performance between years 2 and 3 in terms of the numbers requires more than simply performing at the same level but more efficiently. Out of interest on this front do the students who've got higher 2nd year marks struggle more at Masters level? Hard to say, beacuse hardly any UK undergrads progress to master's level immediately on completion of their UG degree. In the last department I taught, almost all the MA students were Chinese or South Korean, and the few that weren't were EU (with full fees usually being paid by the taxpayers of their home country, for whom I frequently had to submit copious progress reports). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 At Leeds the term used was 'exit velocity', and was a criterion for a discretionary upgrade, although your final year 2/3 weighted mark still had to be in the discretion zone (i.e. between 69.0 and 69.4 for a first and 59 and 59.4 for a 2:1) in order for you to be eligible for it. If it was, there would be a discussion at the degree classification meeting, in which the student's complete spread of marks was shown on a screen and the assembled academics discussed whether to award the higher classification. In the seven years of these meetings I attended, the upgrade was given in around, I'd guess, 80% of cases, with 'exit velocity' (i.e. the student's overall performance was significantly stronger in year 3 than in year 2) frequently being cited as the main reason. Where the upgrade wasn't given, the main reason cited was usually either poor attendance or only having 100 credits at year 1 (out of 120 credits - usually six 20-credit modules, depending on the programme - you only have to pass 100 in year 1 to progress. Weaker students failing their elective module and not bothering to do the retake was very common, but was seen as a reason not to upgrade if they ended up in a discretion zone at the end of their programme). It would appear I close but no cigar. If it had been the 110m instead of 100m I probably would have made it. I can understand why it gets done but part of me does feel it's like awarding gold to the person who came second because they really tried hard but just weren't quite good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 There seems to be a disproportionate amount of Professors here, on this site. Am I in the wrong place? This must be the cleverest forum on Earth! I count myself lucky to have discovered HPC. It may well have the highest concentration of high IQ INTJs of any forum on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I count myself lucky to have discovered HPC. It may well have the highest concentration of high IQ INTJs of any forum on the internet. And most excellent toilet jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtomsilver2 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Haven't A-levels been diluted as well therefore students are only better on paper. As for being better prepared that's ******** too, how many distractions are there now compared to say 20 years ago (x-factor, big brother, interweb). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted January 24, 2014 Author Share Posted January 24, 2014 Haven't A-levels been diluted as well therefore students are only better on paper. As for being better prepared that's ******** too, how many distractions are there now compared to say 20 years ago (x-factor, big brother, interweb). When I did A-Levels is was an all or nothing exam after 2 years, now it's modular and if you don't pass the first year you don't do the second. I'm not sure if modular equals easier or not as you constantly have to pass throughout the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.