Policies and Regulation

Presumptive Quotas Policy 2003

(Approved, Academic Staff Meeting 4/03, 23 May 2003)

This policy is in effect from 1st semester 2003.

1. The presumptive quotas in the Faculty of Law are as follows:
    

   Grade	Minimum	Maximum
   HD	5%	10%
   D	10%	20%
   C	25%	35%
   Total	40%	65%

   
    
2. They continue to apply to all undergraduate units with enrolments of 100 or more.
3. The presumptive quotas apply to the final results returned in all units with an enrolment of 100 or more.
4. They do not apply to individual streams, nor to forms of continuing assessment (assignments or class tests) since it is accepted that justifiable variations may occur in streams within the unit, or in relation to individual assessable exercises.
5. They are not a direction to standardise marks, but an indication of the faculty’s general expectation in relation to the distribution of final grades in relation to units with large enrolments.
6. They are not intended to suppress the proper recognition of high quality in the work of students and are not to be applied rigidly.
7. It is understood that upward departures from presumptive quotas in elective units unit to them may be justified because students have selected for those units on the basis of a special interest and commitment.
8. The faculty recognises the need for flexibility in utilizing each of the honours level grades.
9. The Board of Examiners will be more concerned to enquire why the suggested overall minimum percentage of honours level grades has not been attained (i.e. 40%), or why the overall maximum (65%) has been significantly exceeded, than why the distribution of results between the three honours grades does not fall with the range of percentages suggested.
10. The suggested criteria for grades be that set out in Appendix A.

Appendix A

Suggested Criteria for Grades

Originally approved by Undergraduate Studies Committee meeting 10/99
Amended Academic Staff meeting 4/03

The criteria set out below are intended to provide a guide to examiners in relation to all undergraduate units. It should be recognised that grading involves a comparison between the performances of all the students enrolled in a unit, rather than a comparison against some ‘absolute’ notion of good or poor performance. For example, a candidate awarded a High Distinction should have an excellent level of achievement, compared with all other candidates enrolled in that unit.

N — Fail (below 49%): An unsatisfactory level of achievement in relation to the assessable tasks. The candidate has not addressed sufficiently the legal issues raised by the task and/or does not understand the relevant law. He or she has failed to make any serious attempt to deal with the issues which have been identified, or has done so in a grossly inadequate fashion.

P — Pass (50%-59%): A satisfactory level of achievement in relation to the assessable tasks. The candidate has identified the principal issues, and generally applies the law accurately, but does not explore them in any detail and leaves difficulties unexamined. Alternatively, he or she may have addressed some issues quite well, but omitted others or mentioned them quite briefly. In the upper Pass range, the candidate may have attempted a more detailed examination of the relevant law, but has not supplied sufficient reasoning and authority to justify his or her conclusions.

C — Credit (60%-69%): A better level of achievement in relation to the assessable tasks. The candidate demonstrates a more reasoned explanation for the conclusions reached and the citation of authority indicates better familiarity with the relevant cases and legislation. It is expected that candidates awarded a Credit will ordinarily constitute between 25% and 35% of the class in relation to the final result.

D — Distinction (70%-79%): A high level of achievement in relation to the assessable tasks. All significant legal issues have been raised by the candidate and reasoned conclusions presented. The main positions likely to be taken by either side are identified and the candidate’s responses show evidence of wider reading and a deeper understanding of the complexity of the law, legislation and underlying policy. It is expected that candidates awarded a Distinction will ordinarily constitute between 10% and 20% of the class in relation to the final result.

HD — High Distinction (80%-100%): An excellent level of achievement in relation to the assessable tasks. The candidate’s response reveals evidence of a deeper understanding of the complexities of the issues. Indicators for an HD include: ability to identify the position likely to be taken by each side; presentation of reasoned conclusions; citation of authority which reveals familiarity with relevant cases and legislation; support of those conclusions by evidence of wider reading; and a willingness to offer proposals for resolution of the problem, or reform of the relevant law. It is expected that candidates awarded a High Distinction will ordinarily constitute between 5% and 10% of the class in relation to the final result.

University Grade Scale and Law School Presumptive Quotas
1st Semester 2003 onwards

(Approved, Academic Staff Meeting 4/03, 23 May 2003)

1. The first two rows represent the official university grading scale for return of final results in all units.

2. The final row shows the presumptive quotas which apply to units with enrolments of 100 or more. See the Presumptive Quotas Policy 2003.

3. The remaining rows show rounded numerical values for each grade where the assessment task uses a base lower than 100%. They are offered as convenient means of indicating to students their performance level in forms of continuous assessment.

Richard Fox
Associate Dean
(Student Affairs)