Honor (UK system) vs 4.0 (US system)

Can anyone tell me how does a UK honor being graded using US 4.0 scale system? Using US 4.0 scale grading system..what GPA will be consider the UK upper first class honor, upper second class honor, lower one class honor, and lower second class honor?


Kozen

 

Run a search of this forum. agillham has posted fairly completely on this subject. Apparently, it isn't a direct conversion.

 

Yeah, but since it's just before bedtime and I'm feeling nice and mellow (Pol Roger has that effect on even the most austere of us ;-) I'll run through it again ;-)

As nosborne says, there isn't a direct correlation. University College London says that anything over 3.3 is a 2:1, LSE (a college of the same university) won't get out of bed for less than a 3.5!

In very, very, very broad brush terms, the following is what 20 years in the UK HE system leads me to believe.

A UK first is equivalent to anything down to a 3.8 or 3.7.

A 2:I (upper second class honours) lives somewhere in the range 3.3 to 3.8, but be careful of the lower bound if you need it as an application to grad school. The 3.3 UCL asks for is pretty much an outlier on the lower bounds for good UK universities nowadays. LSE, Cambridge and Oxford will all be asking for 3.5 and above.

A 2:II (lower second class honours) is about 3.4 (ish) to 2.9.

A third would be 2.9 down to about 2.5.

A pass would be below 2.5.

Hope this helps!

Angela

 

Say, Angela,

Is there any public heartburn in the U.K. over Prime Minister Blair's appalling new anti terrorist bill?

 

Aaarrrggghhh! Don't get me started!

And as for their related plans for a national identity card for which one would have to pay!!!

Have a peek at the Grauniad's coverage for the view from the just left of centre in the UK: it's all pretty depressing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/0,12780,873826,00.html

Even The Telegraph (pretty much the house newspaper of the conservative tendency to lock people up and ask them questions afterwards) is starting to call Blair illiberal.

Given that we've almost certainly got an election coming up in six weeks, it's all just too depressing for words. I can vote for a bunch of illiberal centralisers who believe that the state knows best about *everything: a bunch of no-hopers who are at least socially liberal but believe that the state knows best about everything else and want my husband to pay 50% income tax: or a bunch of social and economic liberals whose leader is most known for claiming that "prison works"!

My only consolation is that with a bit of luck and some planning I should at least be able to get out of the identity card.

Angela

 

Angela,

Our Supreme Court announced a while ago that indefinite secret detention without charge or trial is unconstitutional. Problem is, the U.K. doesn't have judicial review. Am I right in thinking that Blair's bill is "constitutional" by definition?

However, there is some hope. Your Courts are required to apply the European Convention on Human Rights, aren't they? So it is possible that Blair's bid for absolute power over every Englishman won't long survive?

If not, I'd think HARD about Canada.

 

Alas, the ECHR has a national security opt-out. The reason Blair was so keen to bring in the new terrorism law was because he'd lost in the courts about using said opt-out outwith a time a war . . . it made me want to take the Law Lords out for champagne and give them a collective hug!

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3737145

My guess is that the civil rights lawyers are digesting and dissecting this incredibly bad law at the moment and that the first challenges will come in a few weeks. Given that there have already been suggestions that the new law still breaches ECHR, I suspect it's Strasbourg here we come!

Angela

 

Or maybe Toronto?

What IS it about these people that they want us to "trust them" not to abuse unchecked power?

As I read the new bill, a citizen can be detained merely because the Government has reason to believe that he might aid future terrorist act.

For 900 years, the English have fought, bled, and died to protect the subject from the abuses of government.

Does Parliment really intend to toss all that away in a single bill? Or do they just not understand? Is YOUR government as institutionally corrupt as ours is?

 

Well, Strasbourg has much better restaurants (largest concentration of Michelin stars in a given area outside Paris, yummmm) and more to the point, I want to buy Gareth Peirce or whoever manages to force my so-called government to the EHCR dinner when they win.

Nanny knows best!

Honest.

Even when nanny has also brought you such wonderful ideas as using the Parliament Act to ban hunting or proposing restrictions on the right to jury trial.

You read it right. The Law Lords must be spitting blood, as they made it very clear that the Belmarsh decision in December should not be used as the basis for a wholesale extension to cover the whole of the populace rather than merely foreign nationals.

The current government has an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons, and has had for eight years. Said government expects to win easily the election to be called in a few weeks because you only need about 42% of the national vote to win a huge majority in a first past the post constituency-based election. Said government has also completely emasculated (or thought it had, thankfully, the second chamber still has a few people with brains and integrity left) the second chamber.

You remember your Acton, don't you?

Angela

 

The thing is, Angela, England really IS the beacon of freedom and individual dignity in the common law world. Only in England is it said, "That just isn't DONE."

But from where I sit, Tony Blair is using the present terror scare (no worse, BTW, than the IRA) to establish something close to a police state.

 

You're not going to find me disagreeing with either of your points. As somebody who's effectively an old-fashioned Manchester Liberal, I find the actions of the current government utterly abhorrent. They really are completely power-hungry and contemptible.

However, it won't be the first time that a government of any stripe has dragged this country's name in the mud on a point of short-term political expediency. The country that produced the principle of habeus corpus is also the one that invented the concentration camp and still runs diplock courts in the Six Counties. And some of our actions during the IRA campaign make the current Act look like a mild squabble in the playground. At least if these poor sods are under house arrest, they can't be fitted up and spend 20 years in clink.

And no, the Labour lobby fodder in the Commons really don't get it at all. If you really want to find yourself heaving your dinner all over the keyboard, have a look at the sanctimonious words of one said creatures as written for the Guardian. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1435775,00.html His complete inability to understand why the noble lord referred to him as a "temporary politician" is unfortunately a function of the fact that you could put a red rosette on a donkey and get it elected in Rotherham.

Angela -- settling down in bed with a nightcap. At least they haven't banned drinking in bed . . . yet.

 

Hi all,

I have an Associates Degree with a GPA of 2.9/4.0. So does it mean that when I convert it according to the UK grading system, I have a lower second class honors?


Cheers,
Christina

 

Hi Christina,

Sort of, but there is no direct correlation to the UK system. Correct me if i am wrong.

 

Sorry for my mistake. An Associate degree is not a Bachelor degree hence will not be consider as equivalent. Therefore, there is no honors. You need to complete your Bachelor degree first in order to see your total GPA for the whole degree to check the equivalent.

 

Did you earn your AA degree in the USA?

A US AA program is 2-years so a rough equivalent in the UK might be one of the following designations (but I can't answer your honors question):

At some universities, candidates who successfully complete one or more years of degree-level study, but do not complete the full degree course, may be awarded a lower qualification: a Certificate of Higher Education or Higher National Certificate for one year of study, or a Diploma of Higher Education or Higher National Diploma for two years.
Source: British undergraduate degree classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


My daughter received a Diploma of HE after completing 2-years in a 3-year UK degree program (she failed to qualify for the third year).

 

Since this thread has been raised from the dead I'm curious; did the UK ever adopt the "national identity card?

 

I believe they did. But I read somewhere that they cancelled it sometime last year and it ceased to be a valid legal document.