Repeats/Resits

Econoline Van

I think I'll be doing a couple of these next Semester. Am I reading it right though that no matter how good the work you hand in/exam you sit, the best you can get is a grade point of 2.0?

Seems a bit unfair when you're paying €230. Or am I wrong?

I had some issues, I wasn't ready for the particular exams and I just want another crack at the modules. I don't care about the money or the work, I just want my final GPA to be as good as possible.

WeeBushy

Econoline Van wrote: »

I think I'll be doing a couple of these next Semester. Am I reading it right though that no matter how good the work you hand in/exam you sit, the best you can get is a grade point of 2.0?

Yes, no matter what grade you get in a repeat/resit your GPA will be capped at 2.0. In your transcript it will show the actual grade you received with an R beside it, indicating it was a repeat.

Seems a bit unfair when you're paying €230. Or am I wrong?

The fairness of how much you have to pay for repeats/resits is debatable and many colleges have lower fees. However the fact that your GPA is capped is not. You can't take as many shots at it as you want. This is college, you get one chance at the exam, it wouldn't be fair on other students if you get to take it again and do well the second time, therefore getting a better GPA.

I had some issues, I wasn't ready for the particular exams and I just want another crack at the modules. I don't care about the money or the work, I just want my final GPA to be as good as possible.

If they are genuine issues that resulted in you doing poorer than you might otherwise, apply for extenuating circumstances and if the college deems they were legitimate and affected your results, this will be taken into consideration.

If you don't care about the money or the work, and the modules you did poorly in were electives or option modules then they can be substituted for a new module and your GPA would not be capped for the new one. It does cost though and will put more work on yourself as you would be taking an extra moduke(s) next semester on top of your normal ones. However if they are core, there is nothing you can do about it I'm afraid.

Cost of substituting:
http://www.ucd.ie/registry/adminservices/fees/fees_registration.htm

parker kent

Not really that unfair when you had a chance to get above 2.0 the first time. It seems pretty logical to me that the repeat grade is capped.

Extenuating circumstances are a different issue, but everybody wants to do well and get the best possible GPA.

Econoline Van

Not being defensive here on my part because I'm a C student anyway, usually and 2.0 is about my level
but I DO think it's unfair, in that if someone makes a hames of a semester there's little incentive for them to try harder in the next one. It's not really "getting a second shot" because if someone failed I don't think that reflects their ability. They wouldn't be in college in the first place if they were E students. Maybe they were messing around, didn't focus. They'll pay big money to do it again, that's their punishment, along with an extra workload, and sure why should students who pass first time care? It ain't a competition. We all should just want to be rewarded fairly for an attempt at a module.

UCD has a system right now that if you lose your way (easily done) the result is it can feel like you're in a right hole with no way out. I've been there.

Sad Professor

Is it a core module? If not just substitute it. Costs a bit more but it will save your GPA.

WeeBushy

Econoline Van wrote: »

Not being defensive here on my part because I'm a C student anyway, usually and 2.0 is about my level
but I DO think it's unfair, in that if someone makes a hames of a semester there's little incentive for them to try harder in the next one. It's not really "getting a second shot" because if someone failed I don't think that reflects their ability. They wouldn't be in college in the first place if they were E students. Maybe they were messing around, didn't focus. They'll pay big money to do it again, that's their punishment, along with an extra workload, and sure why should students who pass first time care? It ain't a competition. We all should just want to be rewarded fairly for an attempt at a module.

This is nothing personal btw, but its entirely fair. You can get into college with flying colours and still struggle with a subject. Failing does not mean you are a bad student, it just means you are either not very good at that particular module/subject or didn't work hard. And your results reflect that. I can't see how that is in anyway unfair.
Giving students a repeat/resit without a capped GPA gives even less incentive to work which, imo, is a big problem in UCD as it is. The fact that you can get 30% in three modules and continue on with your degree is pretty poor, especially if the are pre-requisits to future modules. That is a slight at UCD btw, not you, and probably is another matter entirely.. Allowing people to repeat and only have a monetary punishment exacerbates the problem of middle to upper class people dominating college. Basically if you have enough money you can repeat until you get a result you're happy with. It favours the rich and punishes the poor. That's not fair. And a final point on the above, you kinda are in competition with everyone else. Jobs are scarce and results matter.

UCD has a system right now that if you lose your way (easily done) the result is it can feel like you're in a right hole with no way out. I've been there.

I've been there myself as well. I butchered semester 2 of 3rd year (all through my own fault) and thought I had ruined my chances of a 2.1. I knuckled down in 4th year and got there in the end. It can be done Beside one module is only worth 1/24th (depending on weighting) of your degree so messing up one is not the end of the world.

parker kent

Econoline Van wrote: »

Not being defensive here on my part because I'm a C student anyway, usually and 2.0 is about my level
but I DO think it's unfair, in that if someone makes a hames of a semester there's little incentive for them to try harder in the next one. It's not really "getting a second shot" because if someone failed I don't think that reflects their ability. They wouldn't be in college in the first place if they were E students. Maybe they were messing around, didn't focus. They'll pay big money to do it again, that's their punishment, along with an extra workload, and sure why should students who pass first time care? It ain't a competition. We all should just want to be rewarded fairly for an attempt at a module.

UCD has a system right now that if you lose your way (easily done) the result is it can feel like you're in a right hole with no way out. I've been there.

What about the people who didn't fail? Is it right that somebody can fail first time around, pay €230 and then end up with a better result? Should everybody be allowed pay to resit if they are not happy with their results? I don't think the "sure it's not a competition" line should really be used. Nobody hands out medals for results, but everybody should be graded under the same criteria.

No. You get your shot at it, the same as everybody else. If you have genuine extenuating circumstances, there are procedures in place to deal with them. But otherwise, it is up to you to make the effort. I don't mean this as an attack, but there has to be a system and the current one capping repeat results is the fairest.

Pandoras Twist

If it wasn't capped people could just not take the exam if they ended up not having enough time to study properly, get a head start on it for the following take and therefore have an unfair advantage.

Also, there has to be some sort of punishment for failing in the first place

And finally, it's quite difficult to figure out the minimum effort required to get a D in the exam so most will end up studying up to a B standard anyway. I dont know anyone who would risk failing a second time just because they only get a D out of it.

Evilcamper

I agree it should be capped but maybe the cap is a bit too low, 2.0 is essentially a D- in the grade descriptors. If you think about it it can be quite crippling for someones future and I would debate the reasonableness if someone resits and gets a B or something and UCD says "oh so you can do it but we will treat you as a D student" I would strongly debate that the cap should be 3.0 or something similar, It would be more of an incentive I think.

Econoline Van

parker kent wrote: »

What about the people who didn't fail? Is it right that somebody can fail first time around, pay €230 and then end up with a better result? Should everybody be allowed pay to resit if they are not happy with their results? I don't think the "sure it's not a competition" line should really be used. Nobody hands out medals for results, but everybody should be graded under the same criteria.

No. You get your shot at it, the same as everybody else. If you have genuine extenuating circumstances, there are procedures in place to deal with them. But otherwise, it is up to you to make the effort. I don't mean this as an attack, but there has to be a system and the current one capping repeat results is the fairest.

If they completed the module to a higher standard then of course it's fair they get a better result. I'd allow everyone to repeat a module if they wanted. At the end of the day, you get a mark which reflects how well you worked at the module. If I balls up an exam and then do an A standard repeat, it's not really fair that you with your C+ gets a better grading than me.

And I don't buy the rich person repeating until they get a good grade thing. Isn't there a limit to how many times a module can be repeated anyway? And what next, should people who send their kids to the Institute to repeat the Leaving, should the kids also have their Leaving results capped? You did the test, you got the marks, get the credit.

I guess I agree with Evilcamper's compromise. I don't think you should be able to repeat your way to a first, but a D- is an insult to be given if you do the work to get much better. And it ain't easy having repeats/resits on top of your other modules. It's a big punishment, along with the financial cost.

spillit67

You can carry a module from 1st to 4th year. There is no limit to the number of times you can fail it.

WeeBushy

Econoline Van wrote: »

If they completed the module to a higher standard then of course it's fair they get a better result. I'd allow everyone to repeat a module if they wanted. At the end of the day, you get a mark which reflects how well you worked at the module. If I balls up an exam and then do an A standard repeat, it's not really fair that you with your C+ gets a better grading than me.

And I don't buy the rich person repeating until they get a good grade thing. Isn't there a limit to how many times a module can be repeated anyway? And what next, should people who send their kids to the Institute to repeat the Leaving, should the kids also have their Leaving results capped? You did the test, you got the marks, get the credit.

I guess I agree with Evilcamper's compromise. I don't think you should be able to repeat your way to a first, but a D- is an insult to be given if you do the work to get much better. And it ain't easy having repeats/resits on top of your other modules. It's a big punishment, along with the financial cost.

Again, nothing personal but you should have done the work the first time tbh.

This is college, not kindergarden. If you fail you get a GPA to reflect that. You are given a chance to remediate this and progress with your degree, and that is all you can expect after failing tbh.

With these attitudes no wonder UCD degrees are becoming worthless.

parker kent

Econoline Van wrote: »

If they completed the module to a higher standard then of course it's fair they get a better result. I'd allow everyone to repeat a module if they wanted. At the end of the day, you get a mark which reflects how well you worked at the module. If I balls up an exam and then do an A standard repeat, it's not really fair that you with your C+ gets a better grading than me.

And I don't buy the rich person repeating until they get a good grade thing. Isn't there a limit to how many times a module can be repeated anyway? And what next, should people who send their kids to the Institute to repeat the Leaving, should the kids also have their Leaving results capped? You did the test, you got the marks, get the credit.

I guess I agree with Evilcamper's compromise. I don't think you should be able to repeat your way to a first, but a D- is an insult to be given if you do the work to get much better. And it ain't easy having repeats/resits on top of your other modules. It's a big punishment, along with the financial cost.

It's not an insult. They get the same opportunity as everybody else to do the work well the first time.

Edit: Also there is no limit.

Evilcamper

Well this arguement can be argued both ways but some of my course mates have had horrible timetables with 3 exams in 24 hours or 6 exams in 3 days. I personally have never did reseats or repeats so I dunno much about them but I think that there is an oddity since if you think about it professional exams allow repeats but they are really pass and fail exams but in the end you still qualify similarly there is a question of since UCD offers so many exams in such a short while there is a high chance of being burnt out by the time you have certain exams. Hell this would mean the repeats here are worse than most higher institutions people hope to progress to.

WeeBushy

parker kent wrote: »

It's not an insult. They get the same opportunity as everybody else to do the work well the first time.

Also, to be accurate on that point Econoline Van made you are not given a D-, you are given whatever grade you receive and it is marked on your transcript as such. [/PEDANTIC]

Econoline Van

WeeBushy wrote: »

Again, nothing personal but you should have done the work the first time tbh.

This is college, not kindergarden. If you fail you get a GPA to reflect that. You are given a chance to remediate this and progress with your degree, and that is all you can expect after failing tbh.

With these attitudes no wonder UCD degrees are becoming worthless.

€


I see where you're coming from and I agree there has to be some kind of toughness but, on thinking about it, I can't quite agree and I would go with Evilcamper's suggestion of capping the grade at 3.0. €230 plus such a dent in your GPA is just too much of a penalty considering you still have to go and learn the stuff. It's not like you can buy a degree, you still have to do a serious amount of work at sometime.

I did Arts when I was a nipper, around 10 years ago. Just for a year. Got International rather than regular and hated German. But the system was better then, imo. The repeating system and the fact there was no email/Blackboard. I'd make roll-calls for lectures mandatory if I was in charge. It's not kindergarten no, but kids are coming from a regimented lifestyle to having a free rein on their lives at too young an age. Some are mature for it, too many aren't. It's only college is like this. Work certainly isn't! If you don't show up for work on a Monday your phone will be ringing off the hook. It's silly college is not the same. Anyway, sorry, I'm rambling. Today's my last day and I'm just pondering the whole UCD experience.

WeeBushy

Econoline Van wrote: »

I see where you're coming from and I agree there has to be some kind of toughness but, on thinking about it, I can't quite agree and I would go with Evilcamper's suggestion of capping the grade at 3.0. €230 plus such a dent in your GPA is just too much of a penalty considering you still have to go and learn the stuff. It's not like you can buy a degree, you still have to do a serious amount of work at sometime.

I just cannot agree with that in any way. Giving a student a chance to get a C+ GPA because they failed, while a student who got a C first time around can't improve is not fair. If you allow anyone to repeat regardless of their result, then it favours those that can afford to do so, and that's not fair either. The system in place is the fairest one possible.

I did Arts when I was a nipper, around 10 years ago. Just for a year. Got International rather than regular and hated German. But the system was better then, imo. The repeating system and the fact there was no email/Blackboard. I'd make roll-calls for lectures mandatory if I was in charge. It's not kindergarten no, but kids are coming from a regimented lifestyle to having a free rein on their lives at too young an age. Some are mature for it, too many aren't. It's only college is like this. Work certainly isn't! If you don't show up for work on a Monday your phone will be ringing off the hook. It's silly college is not the same. Anyway, sorry, I'm rambling. Today's my last day and I'm just pondering the whole UCD experience.

These people are 18, they're adults. If they are not mature enough to function in a college lifestyle then they should wait until they are; go travelling, work, learn the life skills necessary to perform well in college.

Work is like that because they are paying you to do a job for them. If colleges paid students to go to college you can be sure they would be a lot stricter on attendance etc. but they don't. We pay them, and they provide us an education for that money. If people chose not to avail of it well that's there problem, not the colleges.

Its an interesting topic, and a bit OT from this thread, but I can't see why UCD should be responsible for this. They provide a service, its up to us if we use it or not.

muboop1

spillit67 wrote: »

You can carry a module from 1st to 4th year. There is no limit to the number of times you can fail it.

Would be an expensive and terrible idea. Plus your wrong. You cannot take a module from stage 1, in stage 3. You can only go back a single stage as far as im aware!

Anyway it would probably be a pre-requisite meaning it would mess things up rightly...

Econoline Van

WeeBushy wrote: »

I just cannot agree with that in any way. Giving a student a chance to get a C+ GPA because they failed, while a student who got a C first time around can't improve is not fair. If you allow anyone to repeat regardless of their result, then it favours those that can afford to do so, and that's not fair either. The system in place is the fairest one possible.



These people are 18, they're adults. If they are not mature enough to function in a college lifestyle then they should wait until they are; go travelling, work, learn the life skills necessary to perform well in college.

Work is like that because they are paying you to do a job for them. If colleges paid students to go to college you can be sure they would be a lot stricter on attendance etc. but they don't. We pay them, and they provide us an education for that money. If people chose not to avail of it well that's there problem, not the colleges.

Its an interesting topic, and a bit OT from this thread, but I can't see why UCD should be responsible for this. They provide a service, its up to us if we use it or not.

You can be 18 in 6th year of school, doesn't mean you should start being able to decide whether you want to show up in the morning or not! It takes time to grow up and become an adult and most 1st years are starting UCD when just a few months before they were able to have been called to assembly at the whim of a headmaster! A completely regimented lifestyle (well, mostly). Sure, I think the majority of kids should go and work and grow up but that's not the system that's followed here and never will be. Kids go to college straight from school even if they don't really know what they want to do. It's quite insane, when you think about it, but that's the way it is. I think UCD could do more without being responsible per se. And yeah, we pay them, but then that was the case with all schooling up until starting in UCD, so that point is moot.

You sound like a hardcase Wee Bushy and if every student had your attitude, that'd be great, but they don't. And I remember when I was 19 and in UCD, 10 years ago. I just felt lost and the habit of not going to things is easy to get into. But if I HAD to have gone to 75% of lectures or fail, I would've gone and I would never have gotten into the habit of skipping classes. I was a good student in school and I loved being there. UCD was miserable for me and I dropped out after a year. The same happens with way too many people for it to be entirely their fault. UCD, like most other colleges, could do more. I think that is indisputable. A roll call isn't much to ask!

WeeBushy

Econoline Van wrote: »

You can be 18 in 6th year of school, doesn't mean you should start being able to decide whether you want to show up in the morning or not! It takes time to grow up and become an adult and most 1st years are starting UCD when just a few months before they were able to have been called to assembly at the whim of a headmaster! A completely regimented lifestyle (well, mostly). Sure, I think the majority of kids should go and work and grow up but that's not the system that's followed here and never will be. Kids go to college straight from school even if they don't really know what they want to do. It's quite insane, when you think about it, but that's the way it is. I think UCD could do more without being responsible per se. And yeah, we pay them, but then that was the case with all schooling up until starting in UCD, so that point is moot.

You sound like a hardcase Wee Bushy and if every student had your attitude, that'd be great, but they don't. And I remember when I was 19 and in UCD, 10 years ago. I just felt lost and the habit of not going to things is easy to get into. But if I HAD to have gone to 75% of lectures or fail, I would've gone and I would never have gotten into the habit of skipping classes. I was a good student in school and I loved being there. UCD was miserable for me and I dropped out after a year. The same happens with way too many people for it to be entirely their fault. UCD, like most other colleges, could do more. I think that is indisputable. A roll call isn't much to ask!

Oh I think UCD should (and do) support students as much as possible. No matter where you come from college is such a different way of life, whether you're 18, or 40, going to college is hard. Its difficult to settle in and get used to. I totally get that, I've been there myself. But there are so many excellent support systems in place to help people if they want it, but you have to take the first step yourself to ask for it. And that's the way it should be. So if you fail after all that and you (well one - I don't mean you specifically ) still expect to get another chance, well yeah, tough. And that's leaving aside the fact that its still not fair on other students who did it properly the first time.

I don't think I've ever in my whole life been called a hard ass before, so thanks

Edit: I just want to clarify, when I say 'tough' I don't mean that in a bad way for actually failing. Everyone fails exams. Thankfully I haven't but been close. It happens and I'm not giving out about that at all. I just have a problem with people expecting to get more than a pass GPA for a repeat.

Econoline Van

I'm not looking for support, I'm looking for a bullying, hectoring, regimental-style system.

parker kent

Econoline Van wrote: »

A roll call isn't much to ask!

Many lecturers have a roll call already. Many still decide not to go. There are often percentages of the modules grade given towards attendance. Many still decide not to go.

University is where people are meant to become adults capable of thinking and acting for themselves. That is the point, the creation of well rounded individuals who don't need to be Mammied into showing up and caring about their education. UCD provide an excellent range of care facilities for students who are struggling. But the greatest facilities in the world will not eradicate people dropping out or failing.

A degree would be pretty pointless if everybody could repeat without reasonable consequences until they get the result they want. It is supposed to be difficult. That is not being a "hard case". It is simple, there should be consequences to failing an exam. It should never be possible to fail and then do better than somebody who passed the first time.

Econoline Van

parker kent wrote: »

Many lecturers have a roll call already. Many still decide not to go. There are often percentages of the modules grade given towards attendance. Many still decide not to go.

University is where people are meant to become adults capable of thinking and acting for themselves. That is the point, the creation of well rounded individuals who don't need to be Mammied into showing up and caring about their education. UCD provide an excellent range of care facilities for students who are struggling. But the greatest facilities in the world will not eradicate people dropping out or failing.

A degree would be pretty pointless if everybody could repeat without reasonable consequences until they get the result they want. It is supposed to be difficult. That is not being a "hard case". It is simple, there should be consequences to failing an exam. It should never be possible to fail and then do better than somebody who passed the first time.

Out of 36 modules I think I had 1 lecturer who did a roll call. And for attendance for tutorials for modules it was 10%, easily write-offable.

I agree students shouldn't be mammied.
But I think there should be more done. Everyone turns up on Day 1 and then people start dropping off. The attendance rates at lectures are appalling most of the time. Kids are stupid, immature, it's impossible to grow up in a matter of weeks. It's always been a problem and they can't all be bad kids who are lazy and disinterested.

I agree there should be a penalty for failing. But you make it sound like repeating would be an easy way to breeze to an A. Repeating isn't easy, the extra work-load hurts your other grades also. I just think capping it at 2.0 is unnecessarily harsh.

pljudge321

Econoline Van wrote: »

I agree there should be a penalty for failing. But you make it sound like repeating would be an easy way to breeze to an A. Repeating isn't easy, the extra work-load hurts your other grades also. I just think capping it at 2.0 is unnecessarily harsh.

Not capping it would be unfair to the other students who did pass it the first time.

parker kent

Econoline Van wrote: »

Out of 36 modules I think I had 1 lecturer who did a roll call. And for attendance for tutorials for modules it was 10%, easily write-offable.

Maybe if people didn't write off 10%, they may fail less?

I agree there should be a penalty for failing. But you make it sound like repeating would be an easy way to breeze to an A. Repeating isn't easy, the extra work-load hurts your other grades also. I just think capping it at 2.0 is unnecessarily harsh.

Where did I say it was an Easy A? If people fail, they need to deal with the consequences. It is mad that there is even a discussion about this. A student repeating simply should not be able to do better than somebody who passed it the first time. It is that simple.

Econoline Van

parker kent wrote: »

Maybe if people didn't write off 10%, they may fail less?



Where did I say it was an Easy A? If people fail, they need to deal with the consequences. It is mad that there is even a discussion about this. A student repeating simply should not be able to do better than somebody who passed it the first time. It is that simple.

Even though they've shown they know the subject/module better?? I think that's mad.

parker kent

Econoline Van wrote: »

Even though they've shown they know the subject/module better?? I think that's mad.

They failed it first time when the others passed, clearly they didn't grasp the module better. The people who passed first time don't get a second bite of the cherry to improve their grade.

Rosita

Econoline Van wrote: »

And for attendance for tutorials for modules it was 10%, easily write-offable.

It's funny how people would see a huge difference between, say, 70 per cent and 62 per cent, or 60 per cent and 52 per cent but when the 7.8 per cent (this is the A+ grade calculation point) is for attendance it is considered 'easily write-offable'.

Attendance marks if applied properly across a number of modules can have a very signifcant bearing on a GPA result. Granted if you are happy enough to land somewhere on, for example, the (ridiculously broad) 2.1 spectrum there is a bit of latitude but for anyone who is ambitious to do really well the marks for attendance is an utterly unaffordable concession.

Rosita

Econoline Van wrote: »

I agree there should be a penalty for failing. But you make it sound like repeating would be an easy way to breeze to an A. Repeating isn't easy, the extra work-load hurts your other grades also. I just think capping it at 2.0 is unnecessarily harsh.

You are missing an obvious point. Someone who passes a module with a GPA of 2.0 (D-) does not have the option of repeating. To not cap a repeat at 2.0would put those who fail at an advantage over some of those who managed to pass in the first instance.

In other words if you were struggling a bit in an exam the incentive then would be to deliberately fail (and avail of the chance to repeat) rather than stick at it, scrape a pass, and be stuck with a lower than ideal grade for the module.

That, rather than fear of someone 'breezing to an A in a repeat, is (presumably) the rationale informing the system.

taz70

WeeBushy wrote: »

Also, to be accurate on that point Econoline Van made you are not given a D-, you are given whatever grade you receive and it is marked on your transcript as such. [/PEDANTIC]

This is not quite true.

If you resit a module, you are given a PR or FR depending on if you pass or fail. A resit is just a second attempt at the assessment, so a 2.0 GPA is more than sufficient given you've already failed the module the first time around. (Personally, I think resits are stupid - if someone doesn't know the material well enough to pass the first time around, what makes UCD think they're suddenly going to be competent six months later with no further education on the topic).

If your repeat a module - ie attend lectures/tutorials, complete all assessment as required - then your transcript will be given a grade but the GPA will be capped and there is an R after the grade to indicate it is a repeat attempt. This means that anyone viewing your transcipt will see the grade you received (ie the result of your effort) but you're not given an advantage in terms of GPA over other students in who passed the first time around.

aine92

I was confused about this myself, this semester I failed on exam but had a 3.2 GPA to begin with, does this mean that my new GPA overall is 2.0 or does it mean just for that one grade?

Niles

aine92 wrote: »

I was confused about this myself, this semester I failed on exam but had a 3.2 GPA to begin with, does this mean that my new GPA overall is 2.0 or does it mean just for that one grade?

I think it's just for that one grade, your GPA may change as it's calculated as an average of all your grades.

WeeBushy

aine92 wrote: »

I was confused about this myself, this semester I failed on exam but had a 3.2 GPA to begin with, does this mean that my new GPA overall is 2.0 or does it mean just for that one grade?

As Niles said, just that module will be awarded a GPA of 2.0 assuming you passed it. It will obviously impact your overall GPA, but failing a module doesn't mean your overall GPA is changed to 2.0.

aine92

Thanks @Niles and @WeeBushy, I was a little bit annoyed about it because 3.2 to 2.0 is a massive drop in GPA, glad to clear that up. Ye are only great