First class honours question

Reegis · 01-06-2011 1:34pm #1

If you have a GPA of 3.67 (0.01 behind a 1st) is there any possible way of knocking it up to a 1st? How leniant would tutors generally be about letting you away with such a small difference and just giving you the 1st? I'm doing an English postgrad course if that makes any difference.

dyl10 · 01-06-2011 1:40pm

I would say you have a very good chance if you informally reviewed all of your papers and explained the situation to your lecturers.

You would have an even better shot if they know you.

pljudge321 · 01-06-2011 2:08pm

Anyone else feel that the degree's should be broken down further. The 2.1 covers too wide a spread of grades.

WeeBushy · 01-06-2011 2:17pm

pljudge321 wrote: »

Anyone else feel that the degree's should be broken down further. The 2.1 covers too wide a spread of grades.

That's what the GPA system is for.

Reegis · 01-06-2011 2:33pm

dyl10 wrote: »

I would say you have a very good chance if you informally reviewed all of your papers and explained the situation to your lecturers.

You would have an even better shot if they know you.

That's great, thanks for the reply. Anyone else have any thoughts?

delta_bravo · 01-06-2011 2:51pm

No harm in asking but you should calculate what you need in terms of grades to get the first.

I did a 90credit postgraduate course last year and finished with 3.64. I thought I was really close but realistically I needed to get bumped up a grade in 4 modules so I was nowhere near it really. Although it's much closer with you just check how much of an upgrade you need.

OpenYourEyes · 01-06-2011 3:25pm

WeeBushy wrote: »

That's what the GPA system is for.

Yeah but for a lot of things, such as Masters applications, there is only enough space given to put in your degree-grade, not enough space to put the GPA in after it!

WeeBushy · 01-06-2011 3:28pm

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Yeah but for a lot of things, such as Masters applications, there is only enough space given to put in your degree-grade, not enough space to put the GPA in after it!

That would be a fault with the application process rather than degree classifications.

OpenYourEyes · 01-06-2011 3:31pm

WeeBushy wrote: »

That would be a fault with the application process rather than degree classifications.

Well it could be solved by either changing the applications process, or changing the degree grade/GPA system

WeeBushy · 01-06-2011 3:58pm

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Well it could be solved by either changing the applications process, or changing the degree grade/GPA system

It could, but why change the GPA system? It fixes exactly the problem with the old system where a 2.1 is quite vague. The GPA system very accurately shows how you did in your degree.

Overall, educational institutions and employers do need to get on board with the GPA system more. But it is happening, slowly, which is to be expected with any new system.

Reegis · 01-06-2011 8:00pm

delta_bravo wrote: »

No harm in asking but you should calculate what you need in terms of grades to get the first.

I did a 90credit postgraduate course last year and finished with 3.64. I thought I was really close but realistically I needed to get bumped up a grade in 4 modules so I was nowhere near it really. Although it's much closer with you just check how much of an upgrade you need.

Well for me it would literally be the difference in one grade, i.e. a B to a B+ in one module.

Mardy Bum · 01-06-2011 8:39pm

If you think you were marked hard on some of your modules you should definitely go for it. I would be weary otherwise.

Pandoras Twist · 01-06-2011 11:08pm

Is there anywhere we can go to see what UCD thinks our grade is?

My friend's final degree grade works out at 3.679 so we want to find out if they round up or what.

delta_bravo · 02-06-2011 7:28am

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

Is there anywhere we can go to see what UCD thinks our grade is?

My friend's final degree grade works out at 3.679 so we want to find out if they round up or what.

Em where did you get the 3rd decimal place from? GPA per module is always given out by 1 decimal place (i.e. 2.0. 4.2 etc.) so when calculating it overall you would have only a GPA to 2 decimal places.

pljudge321 · 02-06-2011 8:04am

Pandoras Twist wrote: »

Is there anywhere we can go to see what UCD thinks our grade is?

My friend's final degree grade works out at 3.679 so we want to find out if they round up or what.

It'll be rounded up (I'm pretty sure) so tell him congrats on the first. When you work mine out its at .116 which is rounded to .12.

delta_bravo wrote: »

Em where did you get the 3rd decimal place from? GPA per module is always given out by 1 decimal place (i.e. 2.0. 4.2 etc.) so when calculating it overall you would have only a GPA to 2 decimal places.

Thats not true, your gpa can move up or down in increments of 0.2/12 or 0.016667 for your yearly GPA. i.e if you get moved up a single grade in a subject your GPA calculation point will be increased by the above and then rounded to two decimal places.

Gae · 02-06-2011 4:13pm

Reegis wrote: »

If you have a GPA of 3.67 (0.01 behind a 1st) is there any possible way of knocking it up to a 1st? How leniant would tutors generally be about letting you away with such a small difference and just giving you the 1st? I'm doing an English postgrad course if that makes any difference.

To be honest, it's actually pretty unlikely. An A- is 3.8 on the GPA scale. When they introduced the GPA system they were going to have it that to get a first, you would need an overall GPA of 3.8. But that would have been a bit harsh, because if you got all As and just one B, that would pull you down below a first. So they built in a pretty generous margin - so anything over 3.67 or whatever is given a first.

Lets look at it in perspective. A B+ is 3.6. If you get 3.67 overall, then it's pretty clear you're averaging Bs. You are quite a way away from a A-average performance, which is what is expected from someone getting a first.

Rosita · 02-06-2011 4:39pm

Gae wrote: »

To be honest, it's actually pretty unlikely. An A- is 3.8 on the GPA scale. When they introduced the GPA system they were going to have it that to get a first, you would need an overall GPA of 3.8. But that would have been a bit harsh, because if you got all As and just one B, that would pull you down below a first. So they built in a pretty generous margin - so anything over 3.67 or whatever is given a first.

Lets look at it in perspective. A B+ is 3.6. If you get 3.67 overall, then it's pretty clear you're averaging Bs. You are quite a way away from a A-average performance, which is what is expected from someone getting a first.

But you acknowledged earlier in the post that you do not need a 3.8 average so your comments in the last paragraph are inconsistent.

If someone was doing, say, six modules in a course (as I was), three 3.8 and three 3.6s will give an overall GPA of 3.7. So someone does not have to average A- to get a first. A 3.67+ GPA is closer to a B+ average than it is to an A- average.

Rosita · 02-06-2011 4:41pm

WeeBushy wrote: »

It could, but why change the GPA system? It fixes exactly the problem with the old system where a 2.1 is quite vague. The GPA system very accurately shows how you did in your degree.

The old system was not entirely vague since the actual percentage given also appeared on examination transcripts.

Gae · 02-06-2011 5:07pm

Rosita wrote: »

But you acknowledged earlier in the post that you do not need a 3.8 average so your comments in the last paragraph are inconsistent.

Nothing inconsistent about it. I'm pointing out that there's already a cushion built in to the GPA system that allows people who fall just below the 3.8 - for averaging A- across all modules - to still get a first. The point I'm making is that the cushion is unlikely to be extended further for someone who is even more convincingly a B-student rather than an A-student.

WeeBushy · 02-06-2011 5:36pm

Rosita wrote: »

The old system was not entirely vague since the actual percentage given also appeared on examination transcripts.

No, but it's not immediately or readily obvious which was the point really.

Rosita · 02-06-2011 8:29pm

Gae wrote: »

Nothing inconsistent about it. I'm pointing out that there's already a cushion built in to the GPA system that allows people who fall just below the 3.8 - for averaging A- across all modules - to still get a first. The point I'm making is that the cushion is unlikely to be extended further for someone who is even more convincingly a B-student rather than an A-student.

But the point is that someone can be "more convincingly a B-student rather than an A-student" and still get a First.

For example, someone doing seven modules and gets an A in two of them, a B+ in four of them and a B in the other, gets a 3.69 GPA which is a First.

I cannot comment on the specific circumstances raised by the OP though I suspect if the grade was going to be raised it'd have happened in the first instance.

But a predominance of B grades over A grades is not an argument against raising the overall GPA since, as the example has shown, one can have mainly B grades and still get a First since the GPA equivelent of First Class Honours is closer to a B+ mark than it is to an A-.

Rosita · 02-06-2011 8:35pm

WeeBushy wrote: »

No, but it's not immediately or readily obvious which was the point really.

True - people do talk about 2.1s as if they are generic. Having said that I asked a UCD Professor for an academic reference about a month ago. When he asked me about my overall grades (as opposed to the ones he directly dealt with and knew about) and I replied with my Christmas GPA he looked at me as if I had two heads. He could not make head not tail of the GPA and whether it was good, bad or indifferent. Lord knows what employers are expected to make of it all when someone at the coalface in a University is so far behind the trend! That penny is certainly dropping slow.

First class honours question

Comments