is it harder to get a higher gpa in some degrees than others? (2 Viewers)

[hungwell1337]

This sounds like an attempt to hide corruption.

How does the uni define "too many"? (I'm not directing this question to anyone in particular.)

Perhaps it's possible for a/n [international/domestic] student (failed or on the verge of failing) to bribe the lecturer/course co-ordinator/whoever to "fix the scaling"?

Let's just hope that the corruption actually doesn't happen.

1. its not corruption

2. they will not scale you down to a fail if you've passed in raw terms, HDs might become Ds, Ds might become Cs kinda thing, Passes will stay passes.

3. it is possible that someone may be bribed, but they'll need to bribe the lecturer as well as the head of department etc, but chances are if they are financially able to do this they probably dont care about uni anyways

4. corruption would not affect you if you arnt shit. if they rig the scaling then everyone will be scaled up or down

 

[Timothy.Siu]

that's so weird, why don't they just assess everyone to some given standard, and if everyone gets over 85% according to that standard then great they get HDs, lol

the "standard" you talk about would be hard to set. How would you know if it's too easy or too hard.
Of course, the scaling/percentile system is flawed in some ways too, but at least it maintains consistency somewhat from year to year.
E.g. if the standard was too low, and say, 50% of the people got HD's, and let's say for all their courses, the reputation and integrity of the university would go down, as so many people would be graduating with all HD's on their transcript. Alternatively, if the "standard" was too high, the students would complain...and that wouldn't be nice either.

 

[acehscwebsite]

I'm a Science/Law Student

but I was wondering is how hard is it for people to get HD's for Advanced Science and Med Science? and how are these courses relatively easy or difficult. I'm asking bcs I have friends doing it and I had always wondered?

 

[enoilgam]

that's so weird, why don't they just assess everyone to some given standard, and if everyone gets over 85% according to that standard then great they get HDs, lol

I have no clue why they do it this way, but according to most of my lecturers, they rarely get situations where over 10% of students get an overall HD and more than 35% get D+. Also, the lecturer can appeal to the dean to overturn the limit if they feel that the students are worthy of the HD's/D's. Personally I think its stupid, but thats just the way it works.

 

[study-freak]

For med sci you get a choice of the difficulty of the maths/chem/bio you do (basic/normal/advanced) whereas engo you don't get a pick. you have to choose normal. that's why it's easier to get a higher gpa in med sci than eng if you choose the easier subjects.
If your aim is to sit GAMSAT then you best be doing normal level for med sci as the easier subjects won't prepare you enough for the test.

(This is for USyd dunno about UNSW)

Yeah, but also with some adv subjects, aligning is just so awesome that you can kinda screw up the exam and still get HD. So I don't think it matters a lot in the end.

I'm a Science/Law Student

but I was wondering is how hard is it for people to get HD's for Advanced Science and Med Science? and how are these courses relatively easy or difficult. I'm asking bcs I have friends doing it and I had always wondered?

idk about med sci but relatively easy with adv sci (with some exceptions when e.g. group work kills your marks...).
and particularly true for adv maths subs if you are a reasonably good maths person - they generally align up ridiculously.

 

[Chemical Ali]

the "standard" you talk about would be hard to set. How would you know if it's too easy or too hard.
Of course, the scaling/percentile system is flawed in some ways too, but at least it maintains consistency somewhat from year to year.
E.g. if the standard was too low, and say, 50% of the people got HD's, and let's say for all their courses, the reputation and integrity of the university would go down, as so many people would be graduating with all HD's on their transcript. Alternatively, if the "standard" was too high, the students would complain...and that wouldn't be nice either.

You get an expert in the field to decide what's appropriate for first, second or third year. I'd have no problem designing a first year biology course and setting the assessments because I know what's reasonable to expect a first year biology student to know and be able to do by the end of the first year subject. There's no reason why every student can't achieve those outcomes if you teach them well enough (though it's not likely they all will because uni students are lazy, lol). Your type of thinking is elitist and anti-education.

It's like the university hasn't even studied the literature on outcomes-based education even though we've been doing it at high school for years