Semester 2 Exam Reults

Konata

Good work DCU for not specifying a time for results to be released - was much nicer to log straight onto the system than to have it crashing repeatedly!

Delighted with my results. 1st class honours overall \o/ I know that doesn't matter much in 1st year but still, it's nice to see I'm on track! Personal achievement was getting 92% in my S2 Japanese exam (and 91% in the S1 exam!). I believe I have finally found something I both love AND am good at Happy bunny here.

Well done to everyone on their results, particularly final years. Congratulations all!

Powerhouse

H2G2 wrote: »

I actually do not know any college who do it differently. Certainly graduation booklets for the other Irish universities and many IoTs I have seen have all graduands listed by award merit - albeit many alphabetically within grade rank. I also know several UK universities where this is the normal practice. DCU only stopped calling up graduands for conferring in merit order a few years ago. It used to be the highest 1.1 was awarded first and then down the list until pass in alphabetical order. Personally I thought this was better.
The counter argument was this was an elitist practice, but then again I would argue the all Universities are elitist organizations by design and should be!

University College Dublin certainly does it differently. I went through graduations there for both undergraduate and postgraduate courses and people received their parchments in alphabetical order with no mention of any grades on the booklet, which is why I found it very odd at DCU.

As for the question of it being 'elitist' - I suppose it depends what one means by 'elitist'. At one level it's merely another method for calling people to the stage - they could do it alphabetically, by hair-colour etc. just as legitimately. I wouldn't accept that it promotes higher standards.

The way to that is to stop giving 2.1s to students with mediocre marks because the spectrum is so broad and also to ensure that only genuinely excellent students get firsts rather than filling quotas. It is difficult to imagine students being motivated year in year out by the order in which they are called up on graduation day.

I should stress that my issue with it is the question of confidentiality. They get people to access their results in the first instance confidentially and yet in the end they effectively publicly publish them.

smeal

Wait a sec, so on graduation day they'll call you up by how you placed in the class??

I know they call you up according to Firsts, 2:1s, 2:2s etc but like if I placed 20th for example in the entire class would I be the 20th person to be called up???

Powerhouse

smeal wrote: »

Wait a sec, so on graduation day they'll call you up by how you placed in the class??

I know they call you up according to Firsts, 2:1s, 2:2s etc but like if I placed 20th for example in the entire class would I be the 20th person to be called up???

Well, if they call you up according to your grade then it logically follows that if you are 20th in the class you'll be called up 20th.

I graduated a few years back with a Master's in DCU and recall the names being on the booklet divided out by grade, but I have no recollection of what order we were called up in.

I just thought it was odd - given the increasing emphasis on confidentiality and privacy these days - that this information was made so public.

H2G2

smeal wrote: »

Wait a sec, so on graduation day they'll call you up by how you placed in the class??

I did say used to... They stopped several years ago and now it's alphabetical order... which personally I think is a shame. If you get the highest 1.1 in the class then i personally think you should be called up first. But that's not the way is it in DCU anymore.

--LOS--

passlists are up!


jeezuz no one in my year got a first!

ironictoaster

2/3's of my classed failed something including myself, stressed! Going to be a long 6 weeks.

Kavrocks

--LOS-- wrote: »

passlists are up!

They are up since 3pm on Friday.

--LOS--

Kavrocks wrote: »

They are up since 3pm on Friday.

hmm I was checking, didn't see them up there. Also weird this year how you can basically look up any passlists for any course any year.

Kavrocks

--LOS-- wrote: »

hmm I was checking, didn't see them up there. Also weird this year how you can basically look up any passlists for any course any year.

I got mine then and so did many others.

You could do it last year too if you knew what you were doing this year they just made it easier for everybody.

Precious00305

does anyone how how to register and pay for repeats?

Cardor

Precious00305 wrote: »

does anyone how how to register and pay for repeats?

You should have received an e-mail saying that all information with regards to repeats will be posted out this week along with the official results transcript.

p1akuw47h5r3it

I like the way you can look at the passlists. 2/3rds failed my course to I was one of the lucky ones. I looked at AP for second year only 1 person passed!

Tiroskan

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I like the way you can look at the passlists. 2/3rds failed my course to I was one of the lucky ones. I looked at AP for second year only 1 person passed!

Huh, I feel slightly mollified now. Also, surprised. It seemed like there'd be a few more people than that who'd pass in the class.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Tiroskan wrote: »

Huh, I feel slightly mollified now. Also, surprised. It seemed like there'd be a few more people than that who'd pass in the class.

Ye I'm hoping to do it next year, going in from CES. I'm ****ting it now as I'll already be at a disadvantage. I presume you do the course?

tigerblob

--LOS-- wrote: »

passlists are up!


jeezuz no one in my year got a first!

No-one in my year got one either, wtf? 80% of us got a 2.1 as well, it kinda devalues a 2.1 as well as devaluing hard work - why bother if no matter how hard you work you won't get a 1.1?

p1akuw47h5r3it

tigerblob wrote: »

No-one in my year got one either, wtf? 80% of us got a 2.1 as well, it kinda devalues a 2.1 as well as devaluing hard work - why bother if no matter how hard you work you won't get a 1.1?

Maybe no one got a 2.1 because they didn't deserve one. I'm not trying to rile you but a 1.1 can't just be given out to everyone. It has to be really earned.

bren2001

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Maybe no one got a 2.1 because they didn't deserve one. I'm not trying to rile you but a 1.1 can't just be given out to everyone. It has to be really earned.

9 people out of 22(ish) in my class managed a 1.1, pretty high for 3rd Year Engineers.

--LOS--

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Ye I'm hoping to do it next year, going in from CES. I'm ****ting it now as I'll already be at a disadvantage. I presume you do the course?

well you've a better chance of doing better in ap than pha, they have easier 3rd year and final year courses than us, simple as, it makes a huge difference.

p1akuw47h5r3it

bren2001 wrote: »

9 people out of 22(ish) in my class managed a 1.1, pretty high for 3rd Year Engineers.

Well maybe the 9 people deserved the 1.1!

--LOS-- wrote: »

well you've a better chance of doing better in ap than pha, they have easier 3rd year and final year courses than us, simple as, it makes a huge difference.

I'm not sure about that but I don't really like Chem so I'd probably do worse in Pharmaceuticals than AP. I haven't looked at what people do in 3rd/4th year Pharm.

Kavrocks

tigerblob wrote: »

No-one in my year got one either, wtf? 80% of us got a 2.1 as well, it kinda devalues a 2.1 as well as devaluing hard work - why bother if no matter how hard you work you won't get a 1.1?

How does nobody getting a 1.1 devalue a 2.1 and hard work? I would say it does the opposite, you obviously didn't study hard enough if you didn't get a 1.1. If you deserve a 1.1 you will get one if you don't you won't .

Quite frankly if it was up to me I would raise the percentage for a 1.1 it is too easy to get 70%. I'd say it should be at least 80%.

tigerblob

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Maybe no one got a 2.1 because they didn't deserve one. I'm not trying to rile you but a 1.1 can't just be given out to everyone. It has to be really earned.

Oh I totally agree, I'd hate if they were doling out 1.1s as well. I'm just so shocked that not even one person got one!

Clondalphian

Not sure if this has been answered before.I received an "S" in one module."Resit Assessment Element as per module information"
Checking the module information it says I can re-sit any component of the module.The assessment I will have to do is a research project.This may sound like a stupid question but will I have to pay the 190 euro for the repeats?Thought the fee was used mainly to cover costs of holding examinations,which I won't be sitting

Powerhouse

Kavrocks wrote: »

Quite frankly if it was up to me I would raise the percentage for a 1.1 it is too easy to get 70%. I'd say it should be at least 80%.

I think a lot depends on the subject really. In some subjects a student can demonstrably get full marks - I'm thinking of something like Maths. 80%+ for a First in something like that might be reasonable.

In other subjects such as the humanities (paradoxically often regarded as 'easier') it can require a very strong performance to achieve 70%+, where you are not only required to have serious reading done and know your stuff, but also have the verbal dexterity to react and construct and argument related to the specific wording of a question - the answer to which is ultimately up to interpretation anyway.

Generally I regard the relative achieveability of a 2.1 as far more of a problem. You can have someone barely getting over the line from a 2.2 and someone teetering on the line of a 1.1 ending up with the same grade even though their standards are far apart. That's crazy.

Standards can often also vary depending on the predicability of an exam (whether that manifests itself in the lecturer giving the questions, or simply the exam papers rarely changing, or there being a question on every topic covered) which makes comparing grades from course to course tricky.

bren2001

Powerhouse wrote: »

I think a lot depends on the subject really. In some subjects a student can demonstrably get full marks - I'm thinking of something like Maths. 80%+ for a First in something like that might be reasonable.

In other subjects such as the humanities (paradoxically often regarded as 'easier') it can require a very strong performance to achieve 70%+, where you are not only required to have serious reading done and know your stuff, but also have the verbal dexterity to react and construct and argument related to the specific wording of a question - the answer to which is ultimately up to interpretation anyway.

Generally I regard the relative achieveability of a 2.1 as far more of a problem. You can have someone barely getting over the line from a 2.2 and someone teetering on the line of a 1.1 ending up with the same grade even though their standards are far apart. That's crazy.

Standards can often also vary depending on the predicability of an exam (whether that manifests itself in the lecturer giving the questions, or simply the exam papers rarely changing, or there being a question on every topic covered) which makes comparing grades from course to course tricky.

Equally, in Maths if you don't know it you cant make it up. In most questions it really is a case of getting nearly all the marks or very little. There is very little wiggle room.

In theory, if a humanities student doesn't have a huge understanding of a certain question they can waffle their way to a decent mark, can't do that in Maths. Two sides to every coin.

I don't think there is an issue with 1.1's, on average in ME there is only 2-3 1.1's, 70% is high enough. Raising it to 80% just makes it too hard, I'd still have my straight 1.1's from first year tho :pac:

KeithTS

Powerhouse wrote: »

I think a lot depends on the subject really. In some subjects a student can demonstrably get full marks - I'm thinking of something like Maths. 80%+ for a First in something like that might be reasonable.

In other subjects such as the humanities (paradoxically often regarded as 'easier') it can require a very strong performance to achieve 70%+, where you are not only required to have serious reading done and know your stuff, but also have the verbal dexterity to react and construct and argument related to the specific wording of a question - the answer to which is ultimately up to interpretation anyway.

Totally agree with this, the subjects in Kavs' field are a lot easier to score high in than those in other courses as the questions generally have a right/wrong answer which makes it easy for an examiner to give marks.

I'm not saying the subject is any easier, however, for a student who knows their stuff it is easier to get the 1.1.
When a lot is up to the interpretation of the examiner it can be much harder to score high, I have heard stories from different colleges where the examiners just won't give a first to any of their undergrads in more theoretical subjects, social sciences etc, based on the fact that they have much more to learn and giving a first will undermine this fact.

The idea of increasing the grade required for a 1.1 is insane though.

Powerhouse

bren2001 wrote: »

1) Equally, in Maths if you don't know it you cant make it up. In most questions it really is a case of getting nearly all the marks or very little. There is very little wiggle room.

2) In theory, if a humanities student doesn't have a huge understanding of a certain question they can waffle their way to a decent mark, can't do that in Maths. Two sides to every coin.

1) Never said you could make it up in Maths. But as you say yourself if you are going well all the marks are actually available which is simply not the case in other areas where the low 70s will be as high as it goes. That someone should be on top of their game to get a 1.1 is surely a given anyway?

2) There is a myth around alright about 'waffly' subjects but we are specifically talking here about 1.1s. You cannot 'waffle' your way to a 1.1 if you don't 'have a huge understanding of a certain question'. It simply doesn't work.

Depending on what you regard as a 'decent mark' that might be achievable alright if you get the wind at your back during an exam despite being less than brilliantly prepared for all questions. But a 1.1. or 70%+ is a different matter. A good lecturer will spot a waffler at 40 paces, and will not be as easily impressed by the final page count - padded out by the aforementioned waffle - as the student themselves! The idea that 'if you don't know it you cant make it up' applies in the humanities and social sciences too - just that the student can often feel better for having written something!

Mr.Plough

1st in my masters results :cool:

Still have to submit a thesis next month and do 4 more modules in september though. And the way this thesis is going my average will definitely be dropping

Kavrocks

Powerhouse wrote: »

I think a lot depends on the subject really. In some subjects a student can demonstrably get full marks - I'm thinking of something like Maths. 80%+ for a First in something like that might be reasonable.

In other subjects such as the humanities (paradoxically often regarded as 'easier') it can require a very strong performance to achieve 70%+, where you are not only required to have serious reading done and know your stuff, but also have the verbal dexterity to react and construct and argument related to the specific wording of a question - the answer to which is ultimately up to interpretation anyway.

I disagree, if a lot depends on the subject then why do we currently have the same percentages for 1.1's, etc, across all subjects?

You are suggesting that it is harder to get 70% in a Humanities subject than a Maths subject but I have to say I completely disagree.

Taking students abilities out of the mix. All modules are given ECTS credits which standardise the amount of time need to effectively study that module. With that system the relative difficulty to perform well in exams should be standardised across the board, of course as you progress it will become harder as subjects get more advanced but the difficulty in achieving a 1.1 shouldn't change.

I would also put it to you that maybe the reason there are less 1.1's in Humanities and such is that the people in those courses just aren't willing to put in the work that those in more Math's based courses are and that that stems from the view people have about Arts courses.

KeithTS wrote: »

I'm not saying the subject is any easier, however, for a student who knows their stuff it is easier to get the 1.1.
When a lot is up to the interpretation of the examiner it can be much harder to score high, I have heard stories from different colleges where the examiners just won't give a first to any of their undergrads in more theoretical subjects, social sciences etc, based on the fact that they have much more to learn and giving a first will undermine this fact.

If you know your stuff in any subject you should be able to get a 1.1.

If examiners aren't going to give a 1.1 no matter what then what is the problem in raising the percentage needed for a 1.1?

juanace

Where do you find the passlists?