Ok, now you've asked for it
I shall respond in the style of your good self:
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Bren Tierney 1. Your questioning emphasis on "only a fifth achieved a first or higher"; the inference being that no higher grade was achievable. |
You have, as yet, failed to prove otherwise. Debate over starred firsts notwithstanding.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Bren Tierney 2. My pointing out that it is, in both fact and deed, possible to achieve [regardless as from where, as neither you nor I made initial reference to the seat of learning, alma mater or, indeed, the constructs under which one might be awarded] a double first. Ergo: it is "possible" to achieve a double first. |
A touch of deliberate obfuscation (
) fails to override the basic point - a double first does not involve a HIGHER qualification than a first - it is simply a first (i.e. the highest possible classification) in two subjects
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Bren Tierney 3. It's a mathematical impossibility ot achieve over 100%. |
Alas, not so. I believe that some universities operate a hideous principle involving negative marking and percentage achievement over and above the logical. I believe that this is particularly true of science and mathematics (where they really ought to know better). I'm slightly woolly on the details of this, but am aware of a friend who once achieved 105% in an exam. He got everything right, and consequently blew their odd little equation out of the water...
But putting aside academic oddities such as this, the table lists up to 100%. The highest mark, I'm sure you will agree, is consequently labelled against this 100% mark - and that is a first. Look again, and if you are still having difficulties reading it I shall be delighted to talk you through it line by line
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Bren Tierney 4. "And the bit about double first - point still holds: it is a first in two subjects - ergo the highest mark is a first."
Again, no reference was made as to the number of subjects or subsids one is studying when taking into account that a double first is achievable until your later qualification; which doesn't detract form the fact that a double first is both possible and attainable. |
Don't challenge that it's possible or that it's attainable. Would only dispute that it is a
higher classification than a first. If you look again at the table I pasted in my earlier post this is borne out. I don't see that you are making a point here, I believe that you are simply padding your response in order to make it look more convincing
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Bren Tierney 5. On the contrary: I know people with a double first; so there is nothing fortuitous about me 'stumbling across' it. And again, your first pass emphasis on 'or higher' made no reference to precisely where one might be expected to achieve a double first; just as my reply made clear that they are, indeed, achievable. |
If you look again at my earlier post you will see that my 'stumbling across it' reference was made to starred firsts, and not double firsts. But you knew that already, didn't you?! And you hadn't mentioned them before.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Bren Tierney Pray continue: I'm enjoying this |
Likewise. But give it up Tierney, you've got nothing (and you know it)!
H