Precisely.
The top 5% are the best, renaming that grade with some spastic new name, so that the second best people's grade now has the name of the old best ones, is fucking pointless and shit.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:26, 1 reply, 13 years ago)

What if in say 1985 you needed 70% to be in the top 5% and 5 years later you need 75%?
That means someone who qualified with an A in 1985 could have have been a B standard in 1990.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:32, Reply)

Then boo hoo. You got a B.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:36, Reply)

Grades are only partially for the individual,
they're mainly set for the universities and industry as a cheap way to judge people. For that to be useful, they need to be comparable over different years.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:38, Reply)

But how does inventing an extra letter to the alphabet help anyone?

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:41, Reply)

Universities and industry said
"we need another layer of judging, to show not everyone who got over 75% but everyone who got over 85%" so pragmatically the government went "ok then, but rather than fuck up all the past stuff we'll just do an A+, actually that sounds to American what other symbol can we use"
(PsychoChomp, Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:43, Reply)

Does it not follow that at some point they'll need an A** etc though?

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 18 Sep 2012, 11:47, Reply)