Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 24, September 27, 1976.
Is what happens in Torts indicative of Law Faculty thinking?
Salient deadlines preclude any thorough analysis on the present situation in Torts, but it appears from our investigations that a quarter of those students who enrolled in the class will not be able to sit finals because they did not pass terms. Of the 60odd who missed out, only 15 students were eligible for terms consideration because the others had already fallen by the way-' side (discouraging course content/structure?)
What about the unfortunate 15? The cut-off point was 120 marks out of a possible 300 for two opinions and one terms test. An average of 40% sounds pretty fair until one realises that the average class mark for that notorious first opinion was about 25 - 30%.
Prof Palmer stated in class that those who failed terms could write an explanation to him which could cause him to change his mind although, he had never changed his mind in the past and couldn't imagine the circumstances under which he would in the future.
One particular student who had applied himself diligently all year (100% tutorial attendance, full participation in socratic discussion during lectures) missed out because his total mark of 108 was 12 below the cut-off point.
However good his case was, what chance of terms reconsideration did he have in view of Prof Palmer's virtually flat statement that no appeal stood a chance of success?