Research and analysis
Table 9
Updated 18 December 2020
Download CSV 2.73 KB
| Case | z-score | CAG | Calc grade | Unique on CAG | Rank | Entries from centre in subject | CAG = A* at centre in subject | CAG = A at centre in subject | CAG = B at centre in subject | CAG = C at centre in subject | CAG = D at centre in subject | CAG = E at centre in subject | CAG = U at centre in subject | Calculated grade = A* at centre in subject | Calculated grade = A at centre in subject | Calculated grade = B at centre in subject | Calculated grade = C at centre in subject | Calculated grade = D at centre in subject | Calculated grade = E at centre in subject | Calculated grade = U at centre in subject | Mean generosity at centre in subject | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.85 | A* | C | Y | 1 | 37 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 1.19 | A large (3 grade) difference between CAG and calculated grade, but high-level of generosity in the CAGs compared with the statistical prediction (1.19 grades per entry). The calculated grade being lower than the CAG appears appropriate, but the appropriate magnitude of the difference unclear. |
| 2 | 2.70 | A* | B | N | 2 | 19 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0.79 | The apparent generosity in the CAGs relative to the calculated grades is higher than average. The student is ranked 2nd within the centre. While it appears reasonable that the calculated grade is lower than the CAG, it is uncertain whether a difference of 1 or 2 grades is appropriate. |
| 3 | 3.58 | A* | A | N | 1 | 44 | 5 | 15 | 17 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 15 | 18 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 1.20 | There is a difference of a single grade the CAG and calculated grade. Given the high level of apparent generosity of the centre (1.20 grades), the calculated grade being 1 grade lower than the CAG (along with the other entries with CAG = A*) appears entirely appropriate and consistent with the available evidence. |
| 4 | 3.30 | A* | A | N | 1 | 25 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0.12 | The CAGs appear only very slightly generous compared to the statistical prediction. The downward adjustment of this outlying student, therefore, appears to represent potential disadvantage. |
| 5 | 3.29 | A* | A | Y | 1 | 22 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1.23 | There is a difference of a single grade the CAG and calculated grade and the student has a unique CAG. Given the high level of apparent generosity of the centre (1.23 grades), the calculated grade being 1 grade lower than the CAG this adjustment appears consistent with the available evidence. |
| 6† | 3.27 | A* | A | Y | 1 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | The CAGs appear only very slightly generous compared to the statistical prediction. The downward adjustment of this outlying student, who is also an outlier based on their CAG, therefore, appears to represent potential disadvantage. |
| 7† | 3.26 | A* | A | Y | 1 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0.33 | The level of apparent generosity in the CAGs is below average. It is unclear from this evidence whether the adjustment of the top most student is appropropriate. |