1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

A level grade boundaries 1998 SEG?!

Discussion in 'English' started by yafflebag, Apr 27, 2020.

  1. yafflebag

    yafflebag New commenter

    Hi all, I've been sorting through old paperwork and wondered if anyone knew where I could find (or knows) the grade boundaries for AEB/SEG 1998 0660C English Literature. I just noticed that I achieved 27/60, 16/20 and got a total of 27/80...?! Curious about what 43/80 would mean. Cheers.
  2. CandysDog

    CandysDog Established commenter

    Probably the best (only?) way to get hold of the grade boundaries is to contact AQA.

    AEB/SEG – AEB (the Associated Examining Board) was the A Level bit and SEG (the Southern Examining Group) was the GCSE bit – merged into AQA in 2000.

    I would imagine grade boundaries are something kept in the archives – perhaps on their own, perhaps as part of the examiners' reports (where they used to often be published). The AEB 660 syllabus was popular (and kind of 'famous' due to its innovative approaches to assessment when inherited from the AEB 753 syllabus originally examined in 1979), so one would imagine records were retained.

    As for explaining the adding up of your marks, it might be that some sort of scaling (to appropriate weight each unit) was used when the marks were totalled. It would be unusual for an English A Level of this era to only have two, rather than three or so, assessed components (though not impossible – my AEB History A Level, which would have been in the same era of syllabi, only had two papers). I don't know if this course was modular or the other component marks are just printed elsewhere.

    Also, component mark breakdowns were not often given to students in the late 1990s. Perhaps the reason you have them is because this discrepancy has already been looked into?
    tb9605 likes this.

Share This Page