I have just taken on two sisters, one who is 15 and has just passed Trinity Guildhall singing grade 7 with distinction (having failed the sight reading part!), and the other, 13, having just passed grade 4 with distinction. (It's the teacher's attitude that make them want to change - they spend most of their lessons in tears, apparently). Anyway, their marks sheets show that they both got perfect marks for two of their songs. Now, having heard them sing the songs, there's no way I would have awarded that level of mark.
Personally I have only had one candidate get a perfect mark for a song with ABRSM, and, talking to other teachers, both of singing and other instruments, their experiences are the same.
I would like to ask you all what your experiences are with ABRSM and other boards. Do you think ABRSM examiners are harder markers? And is this justified?

I think pupils generally get the mark they deserve and I don't think the AB mark differently to others. For example, I had a Grade One pupil who got 30/30 for a piece in List B but she totally messed up the List A (which was technically more difficult for her) and she only got a 19 - so merit overall instead of distinction.

I feel the examiner was fair and judged the performance given on the day, and I'm sure the other exams such as Trinity or LCM will do the same.

Only having entered a few pupils so far I've never seen a top mark yet. I always thought they were just about impossible but since being on the forum I've heard about pupils getting them for pieces

I think I got one for aural once, but the sight-reading was usually at the other end of the scale so it balanced out about average

I always used to get them for Aural... recently, however it's deteriorated into comments such as "no aspect of this was done correctly."

In over 30 years of teaching, I've had pupils get full marks for aural on a number of occasions, especially at lower grades (after all, in the early grades it's either right or wrong really, pretty clear cut on marks I'd have thought?).

However, it was only at Christmas 2006 that, for the first time as a teacher, that a pupil got full marks on a piece - a woodwind study in fact. I think it's extremely unusual because full marks (at least to me) implies total perfection in all aspects (technical, musical etc) and that's pretty hard to achieve. I was actually extremely surprised by the mark as I had not anticipated it at all.

Overall, with hundreds of candidates entered for exams in my time teaching, I would have to say I've only ever had a very small number of results I really felt unhappy about. For me, the ABRSM generally works fine.

Thanks for the replies so far. I think I must have messed up in saying what I meant! I was meaning perfect marks for pieces, not the supporting tests. I frequently get students getting full marks for aural tests, but as obist says, full marks for pieces imply perfection in all aspects. (And we all know there is no such thing as a perfect live performance). I think ABRSM examiners have it about right. Certainly the two girl singers were anything but perfect on the relevant songs when I heard them, but of course that's no reflection on what they did on the day.
I've only ever used TG for concert certificates as a stop gap, but I have some anti-theory exams students who want to do higher grades, so will be giving them a try. It will be an interesting experience.

I've never had any pupil get full marks for a piece - and I enter with all the boards, depending on the syllabus amongst other things. I've had a few come very close, but never hit the 100%. And I do think rightly so, because I don't think there's such a thing as perfection. It's not a science. But it would be nice...Well done, AnnC!

Thanks. I'm sure you'll get one one day (I've only had the one in all the years I've been entering). It's even nicer because it's so rare - or should be.

I'm not sure full marks implies perfection. After all, it's difficult to define what a perfect performance is, as it would be a subjective judgment, unlike getting full marks in aural or theory. I think the examiner must also take the level of the exam into account, and award full marks if nothing more could be expected of the performer at that level.

And for the record, it's only happened to me once. Regular readers will remember that katyjay, whom I teach, received 30 marks for one of her pieces at Grade 7 recorder last term.

Edit: On reflection (showers are wonderful places for that ) I would add that my comments are in no way at all intended to diminish the colossal achievement of getting full marks in a piece, but more a reflection on why and when those marks are given.

It's probably also worth adding that I'm sure that the choice of piece comes into play too. Some pieces have full-mark potential about them. Others probably do not - however well-played they lack the spark that a well-written piece lends to the performance.

I think that full marks does not imply full 'perfection' in all aspects, and I also believe that if a mark of 30 exists then it should be awarded to those who 'earn' it, if not why have a mark of 30 if you never award it???
Some of you may say : to have a 'bench-mark' but if you DO meet all the requirements for a 30 then so be it, have a 30! It does not imply that that student is necessarily a prodigy, just that on that occasion he/she performed that piece to a high standard with no 'flaws'.

I'm not sure full marks implies perfection. After all, it's difficult to define what a perfect performance is, as it would be a subjective judgment, unlike getting full marks in aural or theory. I think the examiner must also take the level of the exam into account, and award full marks if nothing more could be expected of the performer at that level.

I think that's a very helpful way of looking at it Andante.

A handful of 29s but don't ever remember getting a 30. We live in hope ... !

We all know that no performance is perfect - not even a professional performance by a professional player is going to be perfect! You, the listener, may think it was brilliant, but I'm sure the performer could tell you all the things that they did wrong.
I imagine that full marks in an exam is something like that - the examinee gave a performance that really couldn't be improved upon (given their level, the piece, etc).

There is no point in having marks that go up to 30 if you can only get 29! If someone went in to an exam - music, maths, art, computing, anything - there should be no reason why it is impossible to achieve 100%. Extremely rare, perhaps (because, as acknowledged above, perfection is rare to non-existant), but not impossible.

I agree with this. I believe if a candidate is being entered for a higher grade but playing the same piece, then his/her mark will be different as the level of expectation is different for different grades. I got 30/30 in a piece for my grade 8 piano about 5 years ago but im sure that if i played the same piece for diploma i could have just got a (low) pass.

I have entered over 100 pupils and taken 30 exams myself. To this day, I've only ever seen one mark of 30 for a piece - a student who did grade 5 saxophone about 4 years ago. Quite a few people get 18/18 for aural and I usually manage 21/21 for sight reading these days. I've only had one student who got full marks for scales though, and that was at grade 1!

Yes.


Yes, I'd agree with these folks: after all, these are "only" graded exams (!) so total perfection in every last aspect can't be assumed? But a performance which leaves nothing to be desired, which was technically & musically simply really, really good, and which left the examiner maybe feeling that they'd listened to a real performance and not been in an exam room should be able to expect 29 or 30, and I'd imagine that between 28 and 30 at least a little must be due to taste, ie whether the examiner likes the student's style of playing the piece...?

One of my first pupils got full marks for a grade 2 recorder piece - and then decided to give up because she wanted to learn the guitar instead.
(Nothing wrong with learning the guitar, I hasten to add - just a pity when she was so talented on the recorder).

None of my pupils has managed it since.

I've been entering students for exams, AB and Guildhall (now TG) for 20+ years and have had a few perfect marks for pieces. These have always been students who have gone on to music colleges, so were already experienced performers and I suspect that they gave great 'performances' on the day. As others have said, full marks for supporting tests are less unusual.

I have a similar level of experience - having entered over 100 pupils and having once - and only once - had a boy who got full marks - for a grade 4 List A piece. He was thirteen at the time and played the piece with a sparkling technique and a really musical and authoritative interpretation. That was what the examiner appreciated. I spoke to him afterwards (though of course at the time I didn't know the boy had got full marks) and the examiner simply said it had been a treat to hear. I suspect full marks simply mean a magical moment for the particular grade in question.

I'm still waiting for a repeat !!!

I have had a few pupils gain full marks in pieces over the years. One young singer even got a small round of applause after her performance of a grade two song and a full mark. It is more likely to happen in the lower grades think. I have had lots of pupils who have got within one mark of a perfect score.

My 7 years daughter did her grade 3 piano last summer and acheived 30, 29 and 30. She then sat her grade 4 in December and finished with 29, 29 and 29. The only thing I can say is she has been well taught.

I had one pupil once who got 30/30/29 for his pieces at Grade 4. I was very impressed - especially as I had only given him a pass for the mock. Having said that, he had played rather badly at the mock and I told him that I KNEW he was capable of playing MUCH better than he had just shown me, but that I had to mark on the performance I heard.