GCSEs - how can DC get a crap mark but a good grade

[SulkingRoom]

DC's mock results are coming in. For double science they got a 6 & 5. But their marks were 19/70 for chemistry and 25/70 for biology (science isn't their strong point ) How can you get a decent pass with such low marks?

Conversely, they got 82% for food studies but 'only' got a 7 whereas 84% in French got them a 9.

Can anyone shed any light on grade boundaries.

If he went in for a higher level paper they assume a base grade competence so the scoring starts a lot higher. When I did my maths GCSE 15/100 was a C.

Posted too soon. 15/100 on the higher paper was a C, but 100/100 on the lowest paper was only a D.

Since the exams are harder the scoring is a lot more generous at the lower end.

The other subjects will be ones with only one exam so will have a more traditional scoring system.

Depends how hard the paper is and what the marks are allotted for and how they spread the grades along the marks.

On a maths paper I did once 60% was an A, 86% was an A*. It was an additional maths paper, like a 2nd GCSE, only the top of the class were put into so they pushed the highest grade up I guess but the rest were reflected in the difficulty of the exam.

Basically, the test was hard, that was reflected in the marks needed for decent grades.

As people have said:

All to do with the mark scheme and the paper.

Maths is the best example.

A Higher Paper covers Grades 4 to 9. So if you take that paper, chances are you are a '4' pupil or above.

Get 15% on that paper and you get a 4. - because the questions are from 4 to9.

But if you do the Foundation paper, then it's a 1 to 5 paper. So easier questions but you need 50% to get a 4 and 75% to get a 5

Grade boundaries are here as an example

filestore.aqa.org.uk/over/stat_pdf/AQA-GCSE-GDE-BDY-JUN-2019.PDF

Thank you for replies. Will have a look at the link. DC did higher papers so that explains decent grades in science (and maths too).

I think the French paper was higher level - at least that's the revision books we were asked to buy.

Another question, why did they change from A*-E to 9-1?

More differentiation in the upper end of the marks according to this article:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48993830

The grade boundaries for science are low compared to other subjects. I was looking as DS been doing his mocks. 67% will get you a grade 9 in Biology (or did in 2019). Whereas you needed 70%+ in English Lit for a 7.
It's madness really

Another reason given was that the public found letter grades hard to understand (despite them having been in existence for most if not all of their lives) but numbers going up were easier.
In primary however, apparently, the public found numbers going up (Levels 1-6) difficult to understand, so they were changed to WTS, EXS and GDS. So much simpler... Oh and scaled scores for tests - numbers between 85 and 120, going up. And as of last year, Standards 1-4 or 1-6 for lower attainers. Also numbers. Also going up.

Science, maths and languages have tiers (Higher and lower). English and all the "optional" subjects don't. Higher tier papers cover grades 3-9 and lower tier 1-5, so grade boundaries reflect that. A low percentage on higher maths is obviously still a higher grade than a high percentage on an easier paper.

Another question, why did they change from A*-E to 9-1?

Because there is sadly no cure for Michael Gove.

Why did they change from A* - E to numbers?
I did a parent course and was told it was simple logistics. Exams were A-E but to show even higher, then we got the *. There was nowhere left to go if levels improve again, so numbers were brought in. Some countries have 1 as the highest grade, but again there would be nowhere to extend the levels if they need to 'up' them. By using 9 as the highest, it could be extended to a 10 in the future (if needed)

@Scarby9

Another reason given was that the public found letter grades hard to understand (despite them having been in existence for most if not all of their lives) but numbers going up were easier. In primary however, apparently, the public found numbers going up (Levels 1-6) difficult to understand, so they were changed to WTS, EXS and GDS. So much simpler... Oh and scaled scores for tests - numbers between 85 and 120, going up. And as of last year, Standards 1-4 or 1-6 for lower attainers. Also numbers. Also going up.

I did O levels back in the dark ages when grading was by numbers, only it was the other way round and 1 was the top score, 9 was an abject failure. So nowadays I'm terminally confused.

Because there is sadly no cure for Michael Gove

I did wonder why 9 was better than 1 but understand now - and why A* was brought in.

@Cygne - I was an O level pupil too but it was A-C (for a pass) in my day. CSEs were 1- whatever.

@noblegiraffe

Another question, why did they change from A*-E to 9-1?

Because there is sadly no cure for Michael Gove.

Suspect Gove has watched too much Spinal Tap and couldn’t resist wanting to turn it up to 11.

Actually, @noblegiraffe has it. QED.