New gpa style (1 Viewer)

[redruM]

D's having the same weight as HD's in the calculation of the GPA is the only fundamental flaw with the current GPA system.

I guess...but then a smaller percentage would have the perfect (or almost perfect) GPA.

Having the 5 point scale would;
1) Differentiate the HD'ers from the rest; and also
2) Make the D'ers look worse.

My main problem is with the 2). Since there aren't many HD's given out, why make the rest (especially the people who get constant D's) seem worse off. Even a student with 2D's and 2 HD's will have a GPA of 4.5/5. I don't think its a good enough reflection on that persons ability. Thats what I think anyway...And also 4 is such a nice number, why fuck with it?

 

[MrRock]

I was in that BBA111 lecture. Obviously being the first lecture i wasn't hanging off every word Allan Bull said but the way i heard it was a bit different to what's been described here.
What i think he was saying was that the current GPA system will remain as is, however the university will now also take the marks students obtain into account. I'm not quite sure how they will take them into account (whether simply an average of some sort on your transcript etc) but I think the principle was to distinguish between someone who gets 51 in every subject for their degree and someone who gets 64 in every subject. Both receive pass averages (GPA: 2.0) but one really is better than the other.
Thats how i heard it...
Don't quote me on that...

Peace out.

 

[iambored]

^^ that makes sense and that i agree with.
it also takes away the problem with HDs and Ds both being counted as 4. but then why have a gpa at all?

 

[AsyLum]

So in other words, they may be implementing a WAM system? rofl

 

[AsyLum]

I think what MrRock said was more credible and that they were looking to reward those who just missed out on GPA scores, by switching to a WAM-based system, rather than the making Conceded Credits and Conceded Distinction marks.

 

[GoodToGo]

I am actually quite happy with the current GPA system...

However, I heard that MQ gives more passes and and less D's and HD's compared to other universities (in Commerce and Law at least). Does anyone know if this is true? If so, I would think that this is quite serious, as we are competing with USYD, UNSW, UTS students for the same jobs, but with a weaker transcript due to the distribution of grades.

 

[buddys]

thanks for explaining it guy

and i have to agree that does sound stupid

 

[clairegirl]

maybe we'll be given D+ or C+ lol or HD+ or HD-
lol

 

[Tabris]

I think WAM is better than GPA. I got a higher GPA than someone from the other uni's but not WAM.

Hypothetical situation

Student A

62 p
60 p
59 p
64 p

Student B

53 p
51 p
65 c
67 c

Student A has a higher WAM but GPA of 2.0
Student B has a Higher GPA of 2.5 but lower WAM

It wouldnt be good to allow 64, 63 as a credit, unless they are raw marks from the accumulated assessments and then scaled to 65 for distribution and SNG.

Speaking of which, they should not really treat HD and D as the same GPA of 4, if Macq wants consistency with others, why not a 7 point system?.

 

[H?]

I am actually quite happy with the current GPA system...

However, I heard that MQ gives more passes and and less D's and HD's compared to other universities (in Commerce and Law at least). Does anyone know if this is true? If so, I would think that this is quite serious, as we are competing with USYD, UNSW, UTS students for the same jobs, but with a weaker transcript due to the distribution of grades.

I'm not sure if it's true...but here's the distribution of marks for ACCG250 last semester if you're interested - only 6/616 achieved a grade of HD, and 64/616 achieved a grade of D or better.

 

[Skittled]

I was talking to a head of psychology and they are changing the system into WAM based and not gpa based for honours cuts for next year and onwards. For example, instead of needing >3.25 for 3rd year psych units, u need an average of 70 across the units (i.e. WAM and not GPA).

...Interesting food for thought, Jamie. Ta! (food for thought for my own reasons, rather than food for thought for the purposes of this thread)

 

[marchetta]

Hasn't the new gpa system been implemented, anyway? I remember my tutor saying if a person gets a mark of 47, for example, it will get rounded up to 50 or something.

 

[AsyLum]

You're probably thinking of raw marks?

 

[kunny funt]

yeah i think the initial thread-starter got confused coz the university isnt stupid enough to implement that kind of "new gpa style"

what i presume the lecturer would have said is that students who get like 1 or 2 marks under the borderline can have their marks pushed up if they have good tutorial attendance, assessment marks, participation and etc

so if somebody got 74 and they have good attendance n other stuff to show they really tried, then they may push them up to 75 to differentiate from somebody who got 74 and did shit all work.

ive heard this before in other lectures

 

[marchetta]

You're probably thinking of raw marks?

Yeah, it is raw marks. I'm getting all confused now.

 

[AsyLum]

yeah i think the initial thread-starter got confused coz the university isnt stupid enough to implement that kind of "new gpa style"

what i presume the lecturer would have said is that students who get like 1 or 2 marks under the borderline can have their marks pushed up if they have good tutorial attendance, assessment marks, participation and etc

so if somebody got 74 and they have good attendance n other stuff to show they really tried, then they may push them up to 75 to differentiate from somebody who got 74 and did shit all work.

ive heard this before in other lectures

No no, it seems to be a move towards establishing a secondary (or even primary) system which is more based on the WAM system, which takes into consideration the final mark, rather than the GPA allocations.

 

[GoodToGo]

yeah i think the initial thread-starter got confused coz the university isnt stupid enough to implement that kind of "new gpa style"

what i presume the lecturer would have said is that students who get like 1 or 2 marks under the borderline can have their marks pushed up if they have good tutorial attendance, assessment marks, participation and etc

so if somebody got 74 and they have good attendance n other stuff to show they really tried, then they may push them up to 75 to differentiate from somebody who got 74 and did shit all work.

ive heard this before in other lectures

Hmm...but that's already happening now, and has been since time immemorial.

 

[bscienceboi]

I have so many marks that are 1point off HD/D/CRs, like more than half really.

As with whether other unis give out more HD/D, UNSW give raw assessment marks but some lecturers push students up to say CR if they are on 64 etc but other than that theres no bell curve marking?

I dont know.

I hope the first thread is right and that it applies to all students pre-2007/2006 but then again it would sux.

 

[GoodToGo]

I think being 1 or 2 marks off in units with a big candidature gives an impression that you were closer than you actually were. A lot of students who were 1 off have already been pushed up to the next grade as they had better tutorial participation/attendance (for e.g.).

It seems EFS only use the bell curve when they want to scale down. Not too much scaling up...they've failed ~40% of students in numerous accg subjects and ~45% in comp125 before (comp125 was subjsequently broken down into 2 separate units, which really says it all).

 

[xeuyrawp]

Okay I'm so confused. Could someone give a summary of what's actually going to happen, preferably with links to a reliable source? Is it going to be retroactive when it's implemented?