USyd's Law WAMs (1 Viewer)

[ManlyChief]

Dearest cherubs,

USyd has posted up the WAMs of the list of graduands for this year. Have a look.

Those of you who notice such things will see that only 2 people got HD WAMs. Do you folks think this is low? Oh, woe, woe, woe. I am now feeling so much better about my low-80s WAM. Let me know your thoughts.

Happy Australia Day for Thursday!
- ManlyChief :wave:

 

[BillytheFIsh]

Why do ~2/3 of the graduands get honours? Seems very high.

 

[ManlyChief]

Resolutions of the faculty base the award on marks not quotas. If x number of students acheive the mark, x number of students are awarded the honours. But, it's really only Honours Class I that really count

 

[Lazarus]

Wow. I'm quite surprised.

I wonder if they're at all comparable with UNSW WAMs.

I wish we got honours.

 

[ManlyChief]

Wow. I'm quite surprised.

I wonder if they're at all comparable with UNSW WAMs.

I wish we got honours.

I would think the people who top both universities would be as brilliant.

Does UNSW publish their WAM list?

 

[Lazarus]

Highly unlikely - they've no reason to publish it.

We don't have honours in law, and WAMs are otherwise (seen to be) very private figures.

 

[BillytheFIsh]

Resolutions of the faculty base the award on marks not quotas. If x number of students acheive the mark, x number of students are awarded the honours. But, it's really only Honours Class I that really count

But they'd still know roughly what to expect... just seems funny to be giving "honours" to the majority of people.

The breakdown is something like 90/70/55... How do first class honours mean anything if 40% of the graduands get them?

 

[ManlyChief]

But they'd still know roughly what to expect... just seems funny to be giving "honours" to the majority of people.

The breakdown is something like 90/70/55... How do first class honours mean anything if 40% of the graduands get them?

They derive their value from the simple fact that the award is based on the attaining of a certain mark rather than the filling of a quota. When I see a person awarded Class I honours, I know at once the standard achieved - insofar as such a standard can be measured by a weighted average mark. That x number of students achieve the mark required to obtain Class I honours and that some people think x to be excessive do not, in themselves, lower the standing of the award. Such a characterisation of x does not consider the calibre of the cohort, generally, nor the difficulty of obtaining a WAM that falls within the standard specified.

The assumption appears to be that honours can only be significant if they are awarded relative to the cohort. However, Class I honours would actually mean less if they were awarded to, say, the top 20% of graduates, because, in any given year, it is known that 20% of the cohort will obtain Class I honours, regardless of their performance relative to preceding years as measured by a WAM for a set of courses that do not significantly alter over the given time period. This entertains the possibility of people with WAMs of 67, 59.2 or 57.01 being awarded Class I honours, which would be absurd. Don't you agree?

Also - I've done my sums and there would be far more people graduating than the list names (the list would be most of the folks who started combined law in 2000, plus 2002 grad law intake plus randoms). So perhaps only the top students graduate in May and the rest do so in June? With the post graduate PhDs, LLMs and suchlike? This would alter the proportions of folks with Class I ...

Laurie: hello :wave: yes, I think that person with a WAM of 86.2 will be getting the medal. You are a bona fide genius, yes? Your reputation, sir, precedes you I think this list is comprable to other years, but I know it is hard, very hard, hardy-McHardHard to keep up the WAM. Personally, at the end of first year, I had an HD WAM; at the end of second my WAM was just 85 and now it's dropped a couple of more points. But, that being said, you will probably get the medal in both science and maths. Luck duck.

 

[BillytheFIsh]

The assumption appears to be that honours can only be significant if they are awarded relative to the cohort.

No no... I have no problem with giving honours relative to a WAM, in fact I think it's the best way. As a student you know what you need to maintain.

I'm just saying that the point of honours is to acknowledge outstanding students. If that list is anywhere near an accurate reflection of the usual breakdown - and more people are coming out with honours than not, it cheapens the concept IMO.

"Outstanding" to me means the top 20% or so. I'm not saying a uni should just give the top 20% honours - but set the WAMs at a point which roughly acheives this. Of course this can be altered from time to time if need be.

 

[Lazarus]

When I see a person awarded Class I honours, I know at once the standard achieved - insofar as such a standard can be measured by a weighted average mark.

This is where it becomes silly. Can WAMs correspond to qualitative standards at all?

Grade distributions vary across subjects and across year cohorts, and the grades awarded in different subjects have completely different meanings.

Your USYD Law handbook states: "Honours are awarded on the basis of weighted average marks (WAMs) in all law units, including failures. In calculating the weighted average marks for Combined Law, all units of study will be weighted equally, at 8 credit points."

But all units of study aren't equal. It's easier to get a HD in first-year torts than in fourth-year advanced constitutional law. Not only are there discrepancies in terms of difficulty (and the 'standard' expected as a result), the standards of some subjects are just fundamentally incomparable. The type of thinking and type of responses required in "Law, Lawyers & Justice" is completely different to that required in any problem-based subject, but it's just lumped into the WAM calculations all the same.

At the end of the day, whilst you'll still probably be able to rank students accurately (because everyone pretty much takes all the same courses), the latest buzzword in academic reporting is 'standards' and at every turn you find the old normative distributions disguised with meaningless qualitative drivel. The truth is that lecturers and academic boards who attempt to assign meaning to the completely arbitrary figures of '85' and '75' etc are just deluding themselves. By the time all those marks and standards are mashed together no-one knows what the hell the figures mean.

The whole WAM system reeks of all the problems that reside in HSC marks before they developed that wonderful thing everybody loves called 'scaling'.

UNSW WAMs are even more flawed - they combine subjects from different faculties. I have had so many arguments with my law lecturers about the validity of our WAMs and their so-called standards-based system, but they just keep on saying that 85 means "Outstanding" and that is that. I have done four years of law, achieved some fantastic grades and I still don't know what "Outstanding" means. Where is the checklist of criteria that comes with standards-based reporting? How can any student know exactly what makes a response "Outstanding" rather than merely "Superior" or "Good" except through trial and error? How on earth are students meant to set standards-based goals to achieve these standards-based marks when the standards aren't even published?

I inevitably end up just trying to make my assignments better than everyone else's. Doesn't seem very standards-based to me.

(Edit: Not a personal attack on you or your points ManlyChief. Just a rare rant from me.)

 

[neo o]

Grade distributions vary across subjects and across year cohorts, and the grades awarded in different subjects have completely different meanings.

But all units of study aren't equal. It's easier to get a HD in first-year torts than in fourth-year advanced constitutional law. Not only are there discrepancies in terms of difficulty (and the 'standard' expected as a result), the standards of some subjects are just fundamentally incomparable. The type of thinking and type of responses required in "Law, Lawyers & Justice" is completely different to that required in any problem-based subject, but it's just lumped into the WAM calculations all the same.

Edit: Just noticed Manly's post

They derive their value from the simple fact that the award is based on the attaining of a certain mark rather than the filling of a quota.

Thats weird.

But wouldn't that problem (at least at Usyd) only happen in electives rather than core subjects? When the entire cohort does a subject aren't high distinctions awarded to the highest x% of students - therefore all students are judged fairly? I can't remember the exact figures for high distinctions at Usyd, but they were comparable to my university (2-5% of the cohort). Such a small variation would account for the aptitude of different groups rather than unfairly skewing the marks. The fact that it's easier to DO WELL in first year torts shouldn't make a difference, because you're going head to head with other students and trying to get into the top percentile, not trying to attain some arbitary mark. In constitutional law, you'd only be trying to get into that top 2-5%, not trying to get a mark above 80.

I can only imagine the marks becoming skewed in small elective classes, where someone may have topped their group but still may not be deserving of a HD.

 

[Frigid]

i agree with manlychief.

to get a law HD is an impressive feat (or a very good stroke of luck).

to maintain a law HD WAM makes one a god(dess) among (wo)men. yes, i am very jealous of those 80+ WAMers.

*sigh* i am yet to get a law HD, and my good friend managed to get a HD in torts bcoz of miscalculation (we calculated backwards she must've got something like 105% in her exam to get her final mark). boo.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm surprised how high all the marks are.

I feel sorry for these people

200117086 74.9
200029449 74.9
200118867 74.9

 

[ManlyChief]

UNSW WAMs are even more flawed - they combine subjects from different faculties.

Goodness - does this mean your law WAM is affected by the marks you get in arts/eco/sci etc ... That is shocking.

And why, oh why doesn't UNSW award honours? I think that's a wee bit mean, especially after all your hard work and $$$$$$$$s in HECS.

 

[BillytheFIsh]

Does anyone know if anyone at you uni has ever got straight HDs for their entire degree?

I was speaking to my moot coach last year and he said noone had at our uni but a couple of people had gone close and then dropped 1 subject to a D.

How torn would you be to get to fourth year and then get a D for something.

 

[Lazarus]

Does that mean the person who got WAM 86.2 will get the uni medal? Seems a bit low for the top of a whole course. Is that typical for previous years too?

The top student doesn't automatically get the uni medial - they also need to be outstanding etc. ("Candidates who qualify for the award of first class honours, and whose work is of outstanding merit in the opinion of the Faculty, may be considered for the award of a University medal.")

UNSW typically requires a WAM of 90+ for the uni medal, and if there are no suitable candidates no medal will be awarded. Hypothetically there might also be rare cases where multiple medals could be awarded.

Does anyone know if anyone at you uni has ever got straight HDs for their entire degree?

Legend has it that Ros Dixon (close relative of Dixon J) scored 90+ in all her law subjects at UNSW.

Her comprehensive summaries are said to be bestowed with special powers and are widely considered to be the holy grail of law notes.

 

[Frigid]

Hypothetically there might also be rare cases where multiple medals could be awarded.

you will find that the learned Mr Ben Saulhttp://www.law.unsw.edu.au/staff/SaulB/, previously of USyd and currently teaching at UNSW, is a dual uni medallist. he's also done a lot of other things.

 

[LaraB]

i agree with manlychief.

to get a law HD is an impressive feat (or a very good stroke of luck).

to maintain a law HD WAM makes one a god(dess) among (wo)men. yes, i am very jealous of those 80+ WAMers.

*sigh* i am yet to get a law HD, and my good friend managed to get a HD in torts bcoz of miscalculation (we calculated backwards she must've got something like 105% in her exam to get her final mark). boo.

exactly!.... im yet to get a law HD stupid 83's n 84s lol startin to hate those numbers had no probs gettin HDs in the non-law course but law seem hell bent on stopping people getting HD's lol

it does seem a bit weird though to have so many get honours.. kind of defeats the purpose of it as far as separating out the very top/best students from htose who were just good...

seems to make more sense to do it on a % basis... i know UWS does it based on marks and % - ie you have to satisfy both... dunno what the ratio is though of honours:non honours students.. may not make any difference in the end...

 

[ManlyChief]

it does seem a bit weird though to have so many get honours.. kind of defeats the purpose of it as far as separating out the very top/best students from htose who were just good...

Again, the assumption here is that 40 percent of students can't be 'the best'. The university has decided that the very best are those who can maintain a D average across 144 credit points of law. Some years, those who manage to do this might constitute 10 percent of the cohort; other years it may be 40 percent. I see no fatal contradiction there.

Is a D average too low? That point can be debated. However - speaking purely anecdotally here - I think the general trend is for a gradual decrease in law WAMs over the five years between Torts and the electives, and so to keep a D WAM is something notable.

I also think the idea of honours as separating the wheat from the chaff - as it were - is an incorrect characterisation. I think of it more as rewarding admirable performance, and, for the reason I have already stated, I think a D WAM is an admirable performance worth commending in this way.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Does anyone know if anyone at you uni has ever got straight HDs for their entire degree?

I wanted all HDs for last year, then I studied late republican Rome. *shakes fist* If that D's going to be my lowest mark (it probably won't be, depending on how far I take law), I'm happy

I also think the idea of honours as separating the wheat from the chaff - as it were - is an incorrect characterisation. I think of it more as rewarding admirable performance, and, for the reason I have already stated, I think a D WAM is an admirable performance worth commending in this way.

From my little understanding, UNSW doesn't have honours because of some ideological belief(?)

That being said, I think that a lot of people expect honours when, like you say, a D+ WAM is also an excellent performance.