dracover said:
from the way i understand it unsw tells u wat ur raw actual mark is. its their other grading systems that gets scaled. if i require 65 for the external exemption then doesnt matter if unsw gives u a pass instead of a cr ur getting that exemption.
How can they give you a mark of 65, and not give you a credit? From what I've found from my friends that go there, its exactly the same system as ours, you have bands, your marks given are scaled and you CANNOT be given a 65 and only a pass.
https://my.unsw.edu.au/student/academiclife/assessment/GuideToUNSWGrades.html
As far as I can ascertain, the majority of people pass, and it progressively gets smaller as you get higher grades. So while they don't strictly apply the bell curve, it still follows a reduction in the higher fields, based on the selectivity of the tutors/conveners (a more personal if not subjective method).
Additionally, not everyone takes a 100 mark exam, in a perfect world everyone would and then we'd all be happy, but because they don't thats where scaling and the bell curve comes in. How do you adjudge people who got 50/100 versus someone who got 26/50? Its a way of putting everyone on a 'level' footing, and has more to do with keeping things clean and uncluttered rather than trying to do the shifty on kids.
the sng system in its design effectively make people repeat regardless of their actual knowledge.
No? Wtf. You're drawing conclusion C from A and skipping B :|
so they measure against other people and previous yrs. y do u need to do that? becuase someone can do 1+1 faster then me or a bit better then me does that mean i dont know how to do 1+1.
Because obviously in the real world, we're not judged against standards, or other people. No really? :|
so effectively their saying they try to lower ur marks, force a certain % to fail to make the uni look good.
They're saying that you can't and shouldn't compare your results to other institutions because they can have anywhere from different content, different teaching styles, a different focus, different methodology, and a range of other things. They're saying that they're trying to maintain a higher quality for our degrees, and by placing strict controls on who and who cannot pass based on a set criteria, they will fail people.
I read nowhere about forcing people to fail, or whatever.
as far as mark allocation whilst exact numbers are not pre determined lecturers have a general guide as to how many they can have in each range based on previous yrs. i know people who work in the admin and they say sng spread for a particular course rarely ever change across yrs. the onli time they change is if the lecturer in charge changes (even then theres pressure to keep it the same) or the course fundamentals are changed.
What does that have to do with your performance? Blaming others for not making a certain mark? Again I state, that if YOU believe that you have fulfilled the requirements for a higher mark, there are avenues to pursue which can and sometimes do lead to their changing. BUT blaming some sort of conspiracy with such a skewed perception of how things work isn't helping anyone. If you know how many people are going to be allocated certain marks, then make sure you tick all the boxes, if you were really that concerned about your marks, you'd have done more about it (with regards to challening them for it).
yes it is true that sng may push people up which again is stupid y should u pass if u couldnt answer any questions fail the whole lot of them.
Because of the perceived difficulty. Do you really think that HSC kids get 100 in all their subjects when they receive a 100 UAI? No, the process of scaling does NOTHING to change marks, but puts you in relation to the rest of your cohort. I think this is the biggest thing you have to get, scaling/bell curves are a way of DISTRIBUTION not a means by changing/altering marks or results. You are given a grade BASED on your position according to everyone else, and of the other factors relating to it.
What would getting a mark of 50 mean? Its meaningless if not put into perspective/context, and thats why they invented this system, to see how you compare not only with the people around you, but also with previous people. Welcome to the real world.
as far as my test is concerned we got a list about 100 papers 20 were compulsory 80 were extra readings. the examined question was not any of those 100 questions. and yes people are complaining. how often do u get 20 posts after a final exam. i mean for a subject with like around 150-200 students some who probably neva even read anything so wouldnt know. some who cant be bothered and some who may have taken it directly to the lecturer instead of webct, 10% of students within a few hrs of the test finising is a high no. i say.
10% of students? Thats not high, if it was so markedly shifty, it'd be in the 60%+. The point is its not, which tends to suggest it was there, but you may have misread/misinterpreted something or missed it completely. I'm playing with numbers, if something so glaringly dubious as that happened, surely there'd be a bigger uproar?
generally i must say i think our disagreement is moreso with wat the university is there to do rather then any sort of marking system. thats a debate for another day i can see where ur coming from i just dont think a university is ther to do that (different basis of arguement so to speak).
I disagree, we never mentioned what a university was meant to do, and I still haven't, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to what/how the system works.
Again I'll repeat, the bell curve system is a method of distribution, not of raw marking, you aren't allocated your marks using the bell curve, but markers will mark you, then look over the majority/distribution of the marks, and allocate people the SNGs based upon their position/raw marks in relation to everyone else.
