redslert: agreed.
ezzy85: i scabbed 0.25 marks in genetics
(out of 10 - and the test was worth 3%)
mr_shittles: You have made some somewhat valid points. Personally, I think the test wasn't terribly well written, but it was good enough for the purposes of testing us and forcing us to study.
1. Zhian said the content in Week 5 and 6 would be tested.
2. Agreed. But seriously, do you think that in a 20 minute quiz, they can cover the majority of the content? Your quiz may differ to mine but comparing the quiz questions to the learning outcomes:
Q1. This covered the differences between NPV and IRR, and you needed to know incremental cash flows.
Q2. (a) Straight theory - Monte Carlo and sensitivity analysis. I think this falls into the outcome 'Understand the impact of risk on capital budgetingy'
(b) Same outcome as above.
3. Sure, there was not a tutorial question on it in the direct sense. But essentially you calculate 2 NPV figures. And the lecturer did mention it in the lectures, and if you understood the lecture material, you would be fine.
4. True. But again, it was just calculating 2 sets of NPV. You could even treat the two sets of parameters as different questions altogether- just use the same methodology.
And actually, I think Kathryn (who taught capital budgeting) isn't a bad lecturer. In fact, I'd say she's one of the better lecturers I've had at uni.
The bottom line? Like redslert said. We aren't spoonfed at uni. Dont' expect lecturers and/or tutors to tell you exactly whats in the tests/exams, and give you a dozen different examples on that question. This is not the HSC. Independent learning, my friend.
And besides, if they had all the same questions as the tutorials, many people would do well- and then that would be a bad assessment- it would be difficult to separate the students into their various ability groups.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, just stating my opinions.