Anyone with direct knowledge of marking rubrics at TCD?

wexflyer

At TCD, a mark of of 70% or more is a First on exams, and not everyone gets Firsts. In many other places, like the US, the majority expect to routinely score over 90% on exams! This implies that the marking rubrics for the exams have to be very different - there must be some "nonlinearity" in the TCD system, whereby small details count for a lot, or..? Would be very interested to hear from anyone with direct knowledge of the TCD marking rubrics - why aren't Firsts more common? What percentage get Firsts? - varies much by faculty?

wexflyer

wexflyer wrote: »

This implies that the marking rubrics for the exams have to be very different - there must be some "nonlinearity" in the TCD system, whereby small details count for a lot, or..? Would be very interested to hear from anyone with direct knowledge of the TCD marking rubrics - why aren't Firsts more common? What percentage get Firsts? - varies much by faculty?

It does vary by faculty.

I do botany, I'm not sure if you can access this but it contains an example of how our essays would be marked. A 65-69% would be a:

VERY COMPREHENSIVE ANSWER; good understanding of concepts
supported by broad knowledge of subject. Notable for synthesis of
information rather than originality. Evidence of relevant reading outside
lecture notes and module work. Mostly accurate and logical with appropriate
examples. Occasionally a lapse in detail.

languagenerd

wexflyer wrote: »

At TCD, a mark of of 70% or more is a First on exams, and not everyone gets Firsts. In many other places, like the US, the majority expect to routinely score over 90% on exams! This implies that the marking rubrics for the exams have to be very different - there must be some "nonlinearity" in the TCD system, whereby small details count for a lot, or..? Would be very interested to hear from anyone with direct knowledge of the TCD marking rubrics - why aren't Firsts more common? What percentage get Firsts? - varies much by faculty?

It is very difficult to get a First in Trinity, particularly in (though not limited to) Arts/Humanities subjects.

I'm in languages, and this year, only two people got a First in 3rd year French (out of 75+ students) and the previous year, not a single person got a First in French language (though I think someone got a First overall, due to their literature/politics/coursework mark bringing them up).
Spanish is fairly similar, I think two people got Firsts this year, but not everyone had the same set of exams (major/minor choices) so it's hard to judge off that.

In some courses, they seem to be marking out of 70 - you can get one word wrong in a translation and get 69%. Very frustrating, but that's the way it is

It varies hugely by course and department (and of course, subjects like Maths often have people getting over 80) but very few people get over 70 and almost no-one gets over 80.

NeuroCat

wexflyer wrote: »

At TCD, a mark of of 70% or more is a First on exams, and not everyone gets Firsts. In many other places, like the US, the majority expect to routinely score over 90% on exams! This implies that the marking rubrics for the exams have to be very different - there must be some "nonlinearity" in the TCD system, whereby small details count for a lot, or..? Would be very interested to hear from anyone with direct knowledge of the TCD marking rubrics - why aren't Firsts more common? What percentage get Firsts? - varies much by faculty?

Across the board, it is generally quite difficult to achieve a first.
Here is an example of the marking scheme for the Biochemistry school:

Scheme for marking of examination answers:
I Excellent; full understanding of concepts with excellent knowledge of subject; evidence of outside reading and thought beyond the content of specific courses.

II-I Very good answer demonstrating good understanding of concepts and broad knowledge of the subject. Lapse of content tolerated at the lower end of the scale.

II-II Good answer that is generally sound but with limited scope. Lapses in detail.

III Adequate but with significant shortcomings in content; containing errors in detail and with poor structure.

F1 Weak answer containing some relevant information but lacking substance and understanding.

F2 Poor answer; serious and absurd errors; contains few or no items relevant to the question.

Lawliet

wexflyer wrote: »

In many other places, like the US, the majority expect to routinely score over 90% on exams!

I've know several people who studied in the US who have said the exams there are easier. Apparently they're not expected to show the same level of knowledge in order to get top marks.

gutenberg

At the upper level (third & fourth year) in my subject, history, to get a first requires some original thought and also a good engagement with primary sources, as you would expect for a history degree. Firsts are quite uncommon in history: from first to third year when I was doing my B.A., no one in single honors history got a first in the end-of-year exams, and only a handful got them in TSM & HistPol. In fourth year a few got them, I think about 10 altogether across the single honors, TSM & HistPol groups, out of about 120 per year or so. On top of that then, people usually don't score much over 70 when they do get firsts: the criteria for a Gold Medal is something like 73% or 75%, depending on how the degree is split up! That said, there have been a few people who have scored well into the 80s over the years, usually for dissertations.