Would you like Fries with that Degree?

[HelenM]

Ok, now you've asked for it I shall respond in the style of your good self:

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

[Mr T.]

Re all the above: I refer the honourable lady to the points I made some moments ago.

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

Re all the above: I refer the honourable lady to the points I made some moments ago.

So you've still got nothing then ?

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by diving dude

The problem is that it is not trendy for young kids to become tradespeople, its so trendy to say "going to uni"

Plus they might actually have to work whilst being trained.

Cavallo (that's Italian for dude btw),

The problem is they have to work AFTER they are trained. Much better to get a degree in media studies and talk bollocks for a living....

{I lived in Tottenham - uni aint "trendy", trendy is like old people innit?}

Chris

(PS grades? Is that Lew? Does anyone give a s..)

[Janos]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

3. It's a mathematical impossibility ot achieve over 100%.

At my university, in some exams you could achieve over 100%. You had to answer 4 questions, but if you answered 5 correctly, then you got 125%.

They also squared the results of individual papers, so 4 questions that were 2/3 correct scored 44%

The subject? Mathematics. Yes I know

Laters,
Janos

[Ratbag]

Originally Posted by Porg

I have to agree. Getting into uni is very easy, but it seems to be trendy for "everyone to have the right" to go, regardless of if you have the brains to hack it. This means that uni's suffer a lot with dropouts in the first 3 months. I know of one guy who did his 1st year 3 times as he kept on failing it.

Porg,

It ain't always easy to get into uni.

My son was trying to get into medical school and got turned down by three out of four (I mean not even an interview) in spite of his predicted 3 x A grades...

Got an offer from the last remaining one (phew!!)..

Now some poor bugger has to fund it...


oh...that's me isn't it??

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by HelenM

....I shall be delighted to talk you through it line by line
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 .....

H

Helen you worry me.

Given your location you GOTTA work for UCAS?

Chris

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by chrisch

Helen you worry me.

Given your location you GOTTA work for UCAS?

Chris

Can't even begin to describe how offended I am by your question

And no, I don't!

H

[PaulC]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

Re all the above: I refer the honourable lady to the points I made some moments ago.

Mmm. I'm with the hon. l. on this one. A double first isn't 'higher' than a first. It may be more commendable - but not necessarily. You could get a pretty ropey double first by just scraping into the division each time - but be inferior to the sparkling genius who did a different degree (at the same university) in which you couldn't get a double first but who got a really fantastic first class degree.

Now its a more interesting question whether a congratulatory (or 'starred') first is 'higher' than an ordinary first. It's better (who wouldn't want one?) but they're both still first class degrees.

In fine, I suspect that to speak of a first 'or higher' is basically a risible Colemanballs. If it isn't, it's still insufficiently imprecise to be very useful as a serious analysis of degree results.

Webbie!! When do we get our pedants' forum??