Monstar said:
I got news from a friend who has a friend that works within macquarie.. those marks that were released were indeed the % we got in the final exam. they haven't factored in any of the assessment elements in it yet.
Hope it calms some of you down...
note: im still shakey.. because i've been told so many different things i dont know anymore.
Firstly, you need to be dubious about what a friend who works "within" Macquarie says. A few people here work "within" Macquarie and would have nfi (like me). Indeed, most people who work for the uni and actually know the facts usually wouldn't say anything about if - if I was exposed to it in my work that I did for the uni (although it has nothing to do with marks), it would definitely be a breach of my employment contract to say anything.
Secondly, not every subject has a "final exam" - that's a contrived term that's only used in subjects which have such an exam. One of my subjects this semester was an archaeological fieldwork subject which is based partly on a massive essay and partly on attitude, ethic, performance, etc on-site. Last semester, one of my subjects was entirely weekly assessments, so I don't know how that would fit into the "final exam".
Just my 2 yen.
shhy8029 said:
Just curious...
Is your final 'grade' usually higher or lower than your total raw mark? that is, your pre-final AND your final mark.
Despite what anyone here will say, it depends completely on the subject. Some conveners do things differently from others their department. Some departments do things different from others in their division. Divisions usually do things differently from each other.
Then there's how Senate processes them.
If you want an answer, you have to ask your convener, although they'll probably say "who cares?", which is pretty much right. Unless your convener's a noob, or your year is exceptional, your raw marks will usually be around your final mark. Understanding how it exactly works is a bit irrelevant, imo.