The title of this article is a quote from the famous Jackson 5 song “ABC”, and rather obviously states that learning letters is just as easy as learning simple numbers. Naturally, the same is true in reverse – although unfortunately, as I can personally testify, love cannot be anywhere near as simple as either! 
The issue here is that of grades within exam systems and the problems associated with the rigidity of the boundaries, which become more and more topical each summer when results are collected and the futures of those subject to this system are determined. In this article, I will explain these problems in detail and suggest a solution that will solve most of these problems with no disadvantages that I can see. Once again, I will focus on the British system, not least because it is the one with which I am most familiar by far.
One Step at a Time
For those unfamiliar with the system currently in effect , I will describe it briefly:-
- The actual score for each exam is standardised based on the overall performance of all of the candidates. This is done to eliminate disparities caused by one year’s exams being significantly harder or easier than another’s.
- The scores scored in each exam within a given subject are totalled up, and a letter is assigned based on the percentage of the maximum possible score that is represented by this total. An A* usually represents 90% (although the method for A* grading in A-level exams is a little more complex), an A represents 80%, a B is 70%, C is 60%, D is 50%, E is 40% and anything below this is ungraded. Each individual exam is usually graded by the same system, although this is rarely of any consequence.
- This final letter is the grade for the subject, and is the grade that most institutions (including universities and colleges) take to assess a candidate’s performance and determine whether they have met their entry requirements. A notable exception is the highly prestigious Cambridge University, which uses the actual scores for this purpose.
The problem with this system is that the grades are “staggered” – in other words, they do not take every mark into account, but instead only show how many of a set of specific milestone values a candidate has passed. This is problematic for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that it doesn’t truly represent how well a candidate has performed. A candidate who has scored 79% has a significantly higher score than one who has 70%, but this is not shown at all. Likewise, a candidate who scores that extra point to get 80% has not done notably better than the one who scored 79%, but is given a disproportionately better grade for that one mark. At the top end, the typical response to “I got an A/A*” is “A low A/A* or a high one?”.
Secondly, this staggering can severely skew average grades, leading to patently ridiculous scenarios such as a candidate getting C grades in all but one exam and still scoring an average A grade overall. Quite apart from anything else, this greatly reduces the accuracy of predicted grades, which are an important part of determining where a candidate should apply.
Finally, such rigid boundaries can and do cause problems for candidates who *barely* fail to reach the entry requirements for their chosen institution. Since the institution often cannot tell whether the candidate has fallen just short or whether they have missed the requirements by a large margin, it becomes more difficult for it to determine which candidates to admit to any spare places. This often results in a single mark making an enormous difference to their future, and this may not even be the candidate’s fault – remarks almost always cause the score to be changed by at least a few marks. Is it right that subjectivity on the part of the examiners on one very minor point can effectively determine that candidate’s future?
The Easiest Route is a Straight Line
The solution is, to me, simple and obvious. The use of letters to dictate grades should be done away with entirely, and scores should simply be expressed in terms of raw UMS marks. These scores would be used to dictate entry requirements, which would request a certain sum total between specific subjects. This has several advantages:-
- It allows greater flexibility with entry requirements. At present, an institution may request BBB within three subjects, often taking the highest three scores within acceptable subjects after results have been published. Candidate X, who scores 100% in every exam in two subjects, therefore getting two A*s, but who only scores an overall 69% (thus scoring a C) will fail to meet these criteria, but Candidate Y, who scores 70% in all three will have the three Bs required. It should be obvious that Candidate X is by far the better of the two, but Candidate Y would be guaranteed a place in this institution, whereas X would not.Now consider my proposed system. For the sake of argument, let us assume that all three of these subjects are scored out of 600. The equivalent requirement would be 70% in three subjects, which is a raw score of 420. The actual requirement, under this system, would be a total score of 1260. Candidate Y would of course score this 1260 exactly, but Candidate X, with 100% in two of these subjects and 69% in the third, would have a total score of 1614, which much more clearly reflects his abilities.Additionally, this system is much more lenient towards individuals who specialise in one or two areas but are otherwise not necessarily excellent academically – which are exactly the sorts of people who tend to be best within their specialist areas and who are therefore likely to be most desired by universities and colleges.
- It allows subjects to be weighted differently when determining entry requirements. At the moment, the only options available to institutions are “require a certain grade within the subject”, “allow the subject grade to be used towards the general entry requirements” or “disregard the subject entirely”. The system I am proposing would open the possibility of score multipliers decided by the institution making the requirements. In a subject which was given a greater amount of weight, the score could perhaps be doubled, and in a subject which was a fringe subject but not unimportant enough to disregard completely, the score could be halved and rounded down. At a stretch, specific modules could also be given extra weight, so that someone who is applying to study a specific subdivision of a subject can have greater weight applied to exams in that subdivision (for example, Statistics being given more weight than other Maths exams when applying for Statistics).To give an example of this, let us use the BBB example previously given, and for the sake of argument say that the student is applying for a Maths course at university. The student is studying Maths, Chemistry, Physics, General Studies and Critical Thinking.The entry requirement could now be set to 1680 between three subjects. General Studies is typically excluded entirely by almost all high-tier universities, so this can be removed from consideration. Maths, being the primary subject, could have its score doubled, so a student scoring 70% (or 420 marks) would have 840 added to their total score. Chemistry and Physics could remain unaffected, and Critical Thinking could have its score halved, so a student scoring 70% would this time be given just 210 points towards their total score. Someone scoring 70% in everything would still get the exact entry requirement. What this means is that people would be rewarded more highly for performing exceptionally well in their subject or area of choice and given a certain amount of leeway for performing badly in subjects that are only of peripheral relevance to their chosen course.
- Finally, and most importantly, every mark counts. Instead of marks only being substantially counted in groups of 10%, every mark would be given equal weight, which is obviously a fairer system overall. This would also hopefully reduce the incidence of people getting exams remarked for the sole purpose of pushing themselves just over a specific grade boundary.
Change You Can Believe In!
In spite of the obvious advantages to my proposal, there will undoubtedly be some concerns about my proposed system, some of which I will address here. Firstly, the new system is easily transferrable from the current one. While numbers may be a little harder to memorise for some people, it wouldn’t be any more difficult to get used to than any other new system (such as the car registration plate changes that take place every decade or so here in the UK). If things become mathematically complicated, an arcane device known as a calculator can be employed.
As an extension of this, this would not necessarily result in added bureaucracy for institutions, since this system is entirely optional. The only aspect that is even partially mandatory is that of using specific scores rather than grouping them by tenth percentiles; the rest are merely changes that are made possible or significantly easier to implement by the new system that I am proposing. Those universities with the available funds or manpower can adopt many or all these changes for a more efficient and fairer entry process, and those who do not can simply ignore the less important suggestions altogether.
Secondly, it will not cause more people to take “fluff subjects” just to boost their overall score. Firstly, requirements will typically be dictated as a total score within a specified number of subjects, so any subject beyond this amount will not be factored in unless the candidate’s score in the subject is higher than one of their current subjects after any multipliers are taken into consideration. Secondly, scores below 40% of the maximum possible score can be discarded, just as anything below E grade is now. Finally, subjects can still be excluded as necessary.
Thirdly, there is nothing that is possible under the old system that is not also possible with this one if desired, meaning that those who dislike the change can simply translate grade boundaries to numbers (or even percentages). The BBB requirement could be changed to a minimum of 420 or 70% in three subjects; as long as no multipliers are applied, this will be functionally identical to the current system.
Finally, it will not necessarily be easier to get into higher-tier institutions. Yes, this will mean that students are more likely to meet their entry requirements. The solution to this is trivially obvious – make general requirements higher. It shouldn’t be difficult to project how much higher student intake will be if this system is adopted and alter requirements accordingly. If anything, it will be harder, since it would now be possible for the very best institutions to demand anything up to and including 100% in three subjects. If students are getting very high scores frequently, it is the fault of the exam system for making exams too easy, and is not something that any change to the grading system will either cause or solve.
In summary, the use of letters for grades is simply too much of an oversimplification and, while it makes things easier to understand, it also causes far more problems than it solves and would therefore be better off being entirely removed.
