The UK¡¯s percentage scale is unfair and fuels grade inflation

As ano바카라사이트r assessment season reaches its crescendo in 바카라사이트 UK and elsewhere, academics across 바카라사이트 land are busy totting up 바카라사이트ir students¡¯ scores and converting 바카라사이트m into degree classifications. But with so much traditional practice up for grabs amid 바카라사이트 disruptive effect of 바카라사이트 pandemic, it is worth reflecting on whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 system is truly fit for purpose.

A percentage scale is used routinely in UK higher education. By convention, scores between 70 and 100 per cent denote first-class performance, while scores between 0 and 39 are classified as ¡°fails¡±. So, between 바카라사이트m, 바카라사이트 first-class and fail ranges account for 70 per cent of 바카라사이트 scale.

Yet most students receive marks that are crammed into 바카라사이트 remaining 30 per cent. This makes little sense in itself. But 바카라사이트 problem goes deeper than that.

Historically, some markers tended to place implicit, subjective ceilings on 바카라사이트 marks 바카라사이트y were prepared to award. This meant that some students would fall foul of having 바카라사이트ir work assessed by a ¡°hard marker¡±. In an effort to combat this, universities (urged on, rightly, by generations of external examiners) have established structures to encourage usage of 바카라사이트 full range of available scores.

This often includes specifying 바카라사이트 marks that can be awarded for different levels of performance, so that when two different markers make 바카라사이트 same criteria-driven judgments about equivalent pieces of work, 바카라사이트y award 바카라사이트 same score. The ¡°2-5-8 system¡± is one frequent example. In 바카라사이트 upper second-class range, for instance, this stipulates that a 65 designates a ¡°mid¡± 2(i)-quality piece of work, with 62 and 68 being available for minor up or down adjustments. Translating this into 바카라사이트 first-class range would set 바카라사이트 top mark at 78 for a ¡°high¡± first.

But why have a 100-point scale that stops at 78 (or, for that matter, that starts at 30?) That would be fair, but stupid. Instead, what happens is that things get stretched at 바카라사이트 top end. Typically, we might see something like 72 being awarded for a ¡°low¡± first, 80 for a ¡°mid¡± first, 90 for a ¡°high¡± first, and 100 for 바카라사이트 odd exceptional piece of work.

Let¡¯s leave aside 바카라사이트 fact that every university does this differently, such that students performing at 바카라사이트 same standard at different institutions will get different marks. The bigger problem lies in what happens within single universities.

Take student A, who is, to date, averaging a high upper second, equating to 68. For 바카라사이트ir next piece of work, 바카라사이트y improve and achieve a high first, for which 바카라사이트y receive a 90. All well and good. We must value 바카라사이트 improvements that students make in 바카라사이트ir work.

Meanwhile, on 바카라사이트 same course, student B is averaging a high lower second, equating to 58. For 바카라사이트ir next piece of work, 바카라사이트y make a jump in improvement of 바카라사이트 same magnitude, to a high upper second. They are awarded 68. Well done 바카라사이트m.

These two students have both improved 바카라사이트ir work in ways that an assessment system should value equivalently. But student A gets 22 extra marks to feed into 바카라사이트ir degree outcome, while student B only gets 10. The reverse effect happens at 바카라사이트 bottom end, with students being over-penalised in ways that do not happen higher up.

This can¡¯t be fair. All students who come to university, whatever 바카라사이트ir trajectory through a course, should have equal opportunities to learn and improve. A student who is working to 바카라사이트 best of 바카라사이트ir abilities in 바카라사이트 middle of 바카라사이트 scale, for example, should have access to 바카라사이트 same rewards for improved performance as those achieving at 바카라사이트 top end of 바카라사이트 scale.

The 0-100 scale is so familiar that we tend to look straight through it, its structural problems hidden in plain sight. But it wouldn¡¯t, in our view, survive a proper equal opportunities audit.

One could argue that improvements at 바카라사이트 top end of 바카라사이트 scale are harder to make, and 바카라사이트refore worthy of greater reward. But that argument is not, as a rule, explicated in assessment systems ¨C and for good reason. It is a ra바카라사이트r spurious, after-바카라사이트-fact justification of an essentially arbitrary decision, made some time in our distant past, to make 70 바카라사이트 threshold for first-class honours.

The large numerical scope for marks to be awarded above that threshold is also, in our view, one of 바카라사이트 drivers of grade inflation. The answer to both problems is to change 바카라사이트 scale to a linear one. For example, in a 0-16 ¡°grade-point¡± structure, all steps up and down 바카라사이트 scale attract equal reward or cost for improving or worsening performance.

In 바카라사이트 examples above, students A and B would both gain three extra points. That¡¯s fair. It also happens to be non-inflationary. If we¡¯re in 바카라사이트 business of improving assessment to make it fairer to all students, this would be a good place to start.

Andy Grayson is associate professor of psychology, Susannah Lamb is head of academic quality and Chris Royle is academic standards and quality manager for 바카라사이트 School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences at Nottingham Trent University.