GPA Question

elpistolero

I'm in my final year in Commerce and was just wondering about my gpa. The gpa is structured based on 30% of year 2 and 70% year 3. Does this mean i take my best 3 results of year 2 and best 7 results of year 3 to calculate my gpa?

NU8

elpistolero wrote: »

I'm in my final year in Commerce and was just wondering about my gpa. The gpa is structured based on 30% of year 2 and 70% year 3. Does this mean i take my best 3 results of year 2 and best 7 results of year 3 to calculate my gpa?

No, to calculate your final GPA mutiply your stage 2 GPA by 0.3, multiply your stage 3 GPA by 0.7 and the add the result. This will give your final GPA.

elpistolero

NU8 wrote: »

No, to calculate your final GPA mutiply your stage 2 GPA by 0.3, multiply your stage 3 GPA by 0.7 and the add the result. This will give your final GPA.

Alright, cheers

LUPE

elpistolero wrote: »

I'm in my final year in Commerce and was just wondering about my gpa. The gpa is structured based on 30% of year 2 and 70% year 3. Does this mean i take my best 3 results of year 2 and best 7 results of year 3 to calculate my gpa?

Why would you ever have thought it was done that way?

Rosita

LUPE wrote: »

Why would you ever have thought it was done that way?

Because it would also give a 30-70 weighting between year 2 and year 3 results?

pljudge321

Rosita wrote: »

Because it would also give a 30-70 weighting between year 2 and year 3 results?

No it wouldn't have.

Rosita

pljudge321 wrote: »

No it wouldn't have.

Would it not have?

If you took, all other things being equal, 3 results from Year two and 7 results for year three and calculated a weighted average overall score on that basis how would you describe the weighting?

I'd have thought that 30-70 seems a fair description if 30% of the results considered are from one year and 70% are from the other. But maybe it's 50-50 or 80-20 or whatever and I'm missing something.

Shame you didn't explain it when you replied.

LUPE

Rosita wrote: »

Would it not have?

If you took, all other things being equal, 3 results from Year two and 7 results for year three and calculated a weighted average overall score on that basis how would you describe the weighting?

I'd have thought that 30-70 seems a fair description if 30% of the results considered are from one year and 70% are from the other. But maybe it's 50-50 or 80-20 or whatever and I'm missing something.

Shame you didn't explain it when you replied.

Oh dear

2nd yr GPA x .30 + 3rd yr GPA x .70

Rosita

LUPE wrote: »

Oh dear

2nd yr GPA x .30 + 3rd yr GPA x .70

Jesus wept............lighten up will you?

I'm simply trying to explain how the OP might have assumed the method of calculation that he/she did, which is what your original question was. I am not suggesting that this is the method actually used.

But if we need mathemathical back-up from Einstein we know where to find you.

LUPE

Rosita wrote: »

Jesus wept............lighten up will you?

I'm simply trying to explain how the OP might have assumed the method of calculation that he/she did, which is what your original question was. I am not suggesting that this is the method actually used.

But if we need mathemathical back-up from Einstein we know where to find you.

Well that's just not true, you thought yourself that that would have been a reasonable way to calculate it.

Einstein's input really wouldn't be necessary here

Rosita

LUPE wrote: »

Well that's just not true, you thought yourself that that would have been a reasonable way to calculate it.

Einstein's input really wouldn't be necessary here

Like I said...lighten up.

You haven't just split the atom. :cool:

pljudge321

Rosita wrote: »

Would it not have?

If you took, all other things being equal, 3 results from Year two and 7 results for year three and calculated a weighted average overall score on that basis how would you describe the weighting?

Shame you didn't explain it when you replied.

I'd describe it as an poorly biased weighting between the years, I'm sure someone with a more thorough grounding in stats could weigh in.

If the weighting was done like this it'd be possible to get an 2nd year GPA of 2.42 and a 3rd year GPA of 2.98 and still get a first class honours.

Powerhouse

LUPE wrote: »

that would have been a reasonable way to calculate it.

You're only trying to score points here to achieve personal adequacy. It was fairly clear what Rosita was doing in trying explain what the first poster was at.

And as you say it would indeed be a reasonable way to calculate it. In the same way that beneficial aggregation was also a reasonable way to calculate it when used. There are many different methods each one fair and reasonable in its own context. One is not mathemathically superior to another, it's just a matter of what the particular school decides to go with at the time. Marking schemes change from time to time.

Don't get your knickers in a twist about it. It's in the month of May you need to prove your academic credentials.

Rosita

pljudge321 wrote: »

I'd describe it as an poorly biased weighting between the years, I'm sure someone with a more thorough grounding in stats could weigh in.

If the weighting was done like this it'd be possible to get an 2nd year GPA of 2.42 and a 3rd year GPA of 2.98 and still get a first class honours.

Not saying it'd be good or bad - merely trying to surmise what might have made the OP think as they did.

Mind you, I'd have thought that getting a first (GPA 3.68+) from combined GPAs of 2.42 (pass) & 2.98 (highish 2.2) would be akin to turning water into wine irrespective of the marking process employed.

I'd have thought that if the 3 highest modules in year 2 came to average GPA 2.42 and the seven highest averaged at 2.98, the overall would be around 2.81. Which is exactly the same as if you did (2.42 * .3 + 2.98 * .7), creid é nó ná creid!

The only difference in what the OP is suggesting and what is the reality is that in reality all modules in the relevant years are considered for marking rather than just the top 3 and top 7.

elpistolero

jaysus i caused some argument here, i was only ever told that our gpa is 30% from year 2 and 70% year 3, nothing else, sorry if i offended anybody by thinking it was done by taking your top 3 and top 7 results, in other news my gpa is proper f*cked!

LUPE

Powerhouse wrote: »

You're only trying to score points here to achieve personal adequacy. It was fairly clear what Rosita was doing in trying explain what the first poster was at.

And as you say it would indeed be a reasonable way to calculate it. In the same way that beneficial aggregation was also a reasonable way to calculate it when used. There are many different methods each one fair and reasonable in its own context. One is not mathemathically superior to another, it's just a matter of what the particular school decides to go with at the time. Marking schemes change from time to time.

Don't get your knickers in a twist about it. It's in the month of May you need to prove your academic credentials.

It's nothing to do with maths, or personal adequacy. It's to do with the fact that the method that was suggested was absolutely ****ing ludicrous, as illustrated by the poster above who pointed out the possible overall GPA one could have yet still get a First.

Rosita

elpistolero wrote: »

jaysus i caused some argument here, i was only ever told that our gpa is 30% from year 2 and 70% year 3, nothing else, sorry if i offended anybody by thinking it was done by taking your top 3 and top 7 results, in other news my gpa is proper f*cked!

No need to apologise. The fault lies with me for replying at all. But these how-the-hell-can-you-think-that-and-not-be-really-clever-like-me type answers to questions asked in good faith get up my nose.

Rosita

LUPE wrote: »

It's nothing to do with maths, or personal adequacy. It's to do with the fact that the method that was suggested was absolutely ****ing ludicrous, as illustrated by the poster above who pointed out the possible overall GPA one could have yet still get a First.

It does seem to be to do with Maths to some extent at least. Can you explain how you can make a GPA of 3.68+ from combined GPAs of 2.42 (Year 2) and 2.98 (Year 3)? Surely the highest possible mark (weighting it completely in favour of year 3 and ignoring the rest) is 2.98?

How can you get a First when neither figure is in the ballpark of even a 2.1? Where do the extra marks come from?

elpistolero

Rosita wrote: »

No need to apologise. The fault lies with me for replying at all. But these how-the-hell-can-you-think-that-and-not-be-really-clever-like-me type answers to questions asked in good faith get up my nose.

Same, just asked a simple question and a few people have a heart attack, i'll take my absolute f*ucking ludicrous questions to the student desk next time i suppose

LUPE

Rosita wrote: »

It does seem to be to do with Maths to some extent at least. Can you explain how you can make a GPA of 3.68+ from combined GPAs of 2.42 (Year 2) and 2.98 (Year 3)? Surely the highest possible mark (weighting it completely in favour of year 3 and ignoring the rest) is 2.98?

How can you get a First when neither figure is in the ballpark of even a 2.1? Where do the extra marks come from?

I don't have the exact calculations but imagine in 2nd year you got 3 x B+, and the rest D-.

Then in 3rd year you got 5 x A-, 2 x B+ and then the rest all D- again.

Overall you would have two poor GPAs, particularly in 2nd year, yet could still come out with a first by taking your top 3 results from 2nd year and your top 7 from third year. Which would be ludicrous.

How am I getting abuse here for pointing out something so obvious?

We're supposed to be in university here

pljudge321

LUPE wrote: »

I don't have the exact calculations but imagine in 2nd year you got 3 x B+, and the rest D-.

Then in 3rd year you got 5 x A-, 2 x B+ and then the rest all D- again.

Overall you would have two poor GPAs, particularly in 2nd year, yet could still come out with a first by taking your top 3 results from 2nd year and your top 7 from third year. Which would be ludicrous.

How am I getting abuse here for pointing out something so obvious?

We're supposed to be in university here

Pretty much exactly how I did it.

Powerhouse

LUPE wrote: »

How am I getting abuse here for pointing out something so obvious?

We're supposed to be in university here

You are being taken to task because of your tone/attitude.

And it is precisely because you are supposed to be in university that it happened. Education is supposed to make you less grumpy and short-tempered.

elpistolero

I think ive cracked it, LUPE here isnt even in university, he could only manage to get into ITT and he's just jealous and angry when us university folk ask stupid questions and have ridicolous assumptions!!Sorry again Lupe...:D
(ONLY TAKING THE P!SS BTW)

pljudge321

elpistolero wrote: »

(ONLY TAKING THE P!SS BTW)

I think everyone is taking the piss at this stage, or at least I hope they are.