Negative Marking

Budlight

I was sure that UCD school of economics had discontinued Negative marking, I have put my reputation on the Line and €50, and now I cant find any evidence on line where the school issued a statement saying it was discontinuing the system.

If anyone can find a link to a page I can use as proof, i would be very thankful.

PS I think the reason behind the system ending as it was sexist against boys.

TheVoodoo

I remember there was a big issue about 'Sexism' and MCQ's/ Negative marking last year. Pretty sure there was a write up in the Observer about it?

I remember at the time thinking the arguments were quite valid, but completely circumstantial.

Zuffer

The school of economics has discontinued negative marking, as of this semester.

As far as I know, they didn't issue any statement or the like. They just did it.

I think the Tribune did a story on it, and they interviewed and quoted David Madden, the head of the school. Unfortunately, the Tribune doesn't seem to be online.

Lecturers have mentioned it in class, and I know the guy who campaigned for and got it.

You're entitled to your €50, but I'm not sure how you're going to get documentary evidence to claim it! Maybe the Tribune keep back issues?

TheVoodoo

Ah yes, it was the Tribune, not the Observer. I too know the certain gentleman, who campaigned for it, hilarious, but lovely chap.

delta_bravo

Was it because men were less risk averse? Interesting idea. I think a few econ modules had very high negative marking in the past, something like -1 which was very high.

TheVoodoo

Yep, it was basically around the idea or risk taking between the genders with, supposedly, huge discrepancies found between the two in relation to the MCQ's and taking chances on a potentially correct answer.

Notorious

Zuffer wrote: »

The school of economics has discontinued negative marking, as of this semester.

As far as I know, they didn't issue any statement or the like. They just did it.

I had a statistics for economists exam this semester which had negative marking.

You lose your €50. Blame Morgan Kelly.

Pandoras Twist

Thats a ridiculous reason to discontinue it. If you take the risk on the question its your decision.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

Thats a ridiculous reason to discontinue it. If you take the risk on the question its your decision.

That;s easy to say when you're genetically more risk averse less adventurous.

Zuffer

Notorious wrote: »

I had a statistics for economists exam this semester which had negative marking.

You lose your €50. Blame Morgan Kelly.

Another thing for the 'blame Morgan Kelly' list? I'm sure once they sort out the banks and the mortgages someone will get to this.

Pandoras Twist

Might as well start girls off with a handicap in exams because they are more likely to study for them

parker kent

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

Might as well start girls off with a handicap in exams because they are more likely to study for them

In fairness whilst I think their reasoning odd, the marking scheme is the same for everybody. Not sure how a lack of negative marking is really a negative for girls.

ironclaw

parker kent wrote: »

In fairness whilst I think their reasoning odd, the marking scheme is the same for everybody. Not sure how a lack of negative marking is really a negative for girls.

I think it was based on girls are statistically less like to guess than guys. So a guy is more susceptible, through not fault of their own, to negative marking. Stupid argument though as there are way too many variables.

Sarn

In medicine it was done away with a few years ago as it was considered to disadvantage women who were more risk averse on the basis that if there was some doubt they'd skip the question.

parker kent

ironclaw wrote: »

I think it was based on girls are statistically less like to guess than guys. So a guy is more susceptible, through not fault of their own, to negative marking. Stupid argument though as there are way too many variables.

Yes I understand that, my point had nothing to do with that.

My point is that if it were true that girls were not guessing, a system that does not punish guessing will not affect them. In fact, they can now guess freely and possibly gain marks. So the new system is not a negative for girls at all.

Edit: This point is obviously working within the theory that lads and girls have different guessing habits

ironclaw

parker kent wrote: »

Yes I understand that, my point had nothing to do with that.

My point is that if it were true that girls were not guessing, a system that does not punish guessing will not affect them. In fact, they can now guess freely and possibly gain marks. So the new system is not a negative for girls at all.

Edit: This point is obviously working within the theory that lads and girls have different guessing habits

That is the point. Guys will guess more than girls, so potentially lose more marks. You have a 1 in 4 of getting it right. But a 3 in 4 of getting it wrong, so a higher chance of negative marking for guessing.

Girls on the other hand will be less likely to guess, so their chance of losing marks is less.

We're probably making the same point though :pac:

parker kent

ironclaw wrote: »

That is the point. Guys will guess more than girls, so potentially lose more marks. You have a 1 in 4 of getting it right. But a 3 in 4 of getting it wrong, so a higher chance of negative marking for guessing.

Girls on the other hand will be less likely to guess, so their chance of losing marks is less.

We're probably making the same point though :pac:

I am saying that the new system is not unfair to girls, there should be no reference to guys at all. You don't have to explain the difference between exams with or without negative marking, I have taken modules on how to teach and I did my first MCQ in UCD 2004, I know the score!

I was responding to a poster saying that they may as well start the girls on a lower mark. So I replied saying that the new system has no negatives (pardon the pun) for girls. Whatever the influence a new system has on guys does not influence girls. The only impact for girls is that any that followed the typical pattern would now be able to take a chance on any they would previously have left blank. So the girls will get the at least the same mark that they would have got before and perhaps a higher one.

Eager_Beaver

To address OP, the college tribune do keep back issues, and im sure theyd be happy to help out in a good auld bet

errlloyd

I agree with whoever said its retarded. Maybe girls should have to do more questions on the paper to make up for the fact they writer quicker, or maybe they should have to do the exam with anesthetic in their arms to make up for their better writing.

Plus, this only swings the advantage to neutral if everyone does every question. If not girls are now losing.

parker kent

errlloyd wrote: »

Plus, this only swings the advantage to neutral if everyone does every question. If not girls are now losing.

How though? You are not in competition with your classmates, so if girls were less likely to guess, at worst they will still receive the same mark that they previously got. And they are likely to get a better mark since the punishment of negative marking is gone.

That being said, I preferred negative marking as didn't like the idea of there being no punishments for random guessing. So with being a guy, I guess that makes me a statistical anomaly :pac:

errlloyd

parker kent wrote: »

How though? You are not in competition with your classmates, so if girls were less likely to guess, at worst they will still receive the same mark that they previously got. And they are likely to get a better mark since the punishment of negative marking is gone.

That being said, I preferred negative marking as didn't like the idea of there being no punishments for random guessing. So with being a guy, I guess that makes me a statistical anomaly :pac:

I think you're agreeing with ne actually. negative narking is good for girls, now it doesn't exist its bad for girls, unless girls take risks. now there is no risk, but I think its more pyschological. girls don't calculate risks, they just don't like being wrong

Mardy Bum

It was discontinued by the school. Karl Whelan said it in a lecture.

Slippers

I'm a guy and I had my first economics MCQ a few weeks ago. It was in International Monetary Economics and Karl Whelan said no negative marking. Wouldn't have affected me though because I'm the only one who got 100%. :pac:
(and I didn't guess)

**Timbuk2**

Slippers wrote: »

I'm a guy and I had my first economics MCQ a few weeks ago. It was in International Monetary Economics and Karl Whelan said no negative marking. Wouldn't have affected me though because I'm the only one who got 100%. :pac:
(and I didn't guess)

Congratulations, that's excellent

Slippers

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Congratulations, that's excellent

Makes a change from my leaving cert, that's for sure. I was held back a year (because I was living overseas and moved back when I was 17) and still only got 155 points.

Chet T16

155 is more than i got!

Slippers

What did you get? Did you repeat?

Chet T16

I got somewhere around 115/120. I left, worked for 10 years, done a part-time course in UCD and went into a >450 points course

Slippers

Good work. I repeated myself the next year (2003) and got 390.