Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 41 No. 15. July 3 1978

Tumbling Dice — Pass/Fail Ratios - the Arguments

page 6

Tumbling Dice

Pass/Fail Ratios - the Arguments

Let me by way of two examples, try to show you what sort of phemonena prompted the Law Faculty to consider the introduction of a pass/fail ratio.

Imagine that Road Traffic Law is a compulsory subject for an LLB and that it is taught in the third year. For some time it has been taught by Academic A who has set a standard which returns pass rates of 70 to 75%, which correspond closely to pass rates in other third year compulsory subjects. Academic A resigns at the end of 1978 to lead a top level government team which has been commissioned to report on pedestrian crossing legislation. Academic B, who is a distinguished practitioner in the Traffic Court, is appointed to the vacancy. Academic B demands a very much higher standard of his class than did Academic A and at the end of the year only 55% of his students achieve this standard.

Take the second example: Academic C, who was a distinguished tailor before he got the call, has been teaching the Law of Wigs and Gowns for several years. Academic C, in common with some of his collegues, has difficulty in setting examinations which demand of the candidates the same standards from year to year. As a result his pass rates have fluctuated from 68% to 85%. Academic C knows that the minor variations in student quality do not account for the rather larger fluctuations in his pass rates.

The points that must be taken are: First, that it is not acceptable for Academic B to refuse to apply a standard which the Faculty considers appropriate to the Degree structure Secondly, that it is not acceptable for students near to the pass/fail line to be at the mercy of the vagaries of the teaching or examining of Academic C however blameless or otherwise they may be. Lastly, both of these examples deny that the respective subjects have any defined role to play in the Law Degree.

Over the past few weeks at a succession of meetings the Law Faculty has tried to find an acceptable method of solving these problems. The first attempt came from Professor McKay who submitted a report which proposed a fixed pass/fail ratio for each subject taught by the Faculty. The percentage of students passing each course was fixed by looking at the history of the pass ratio for that course and then guessing what is "about right". Similarly the margin of 2½% either way, which purported to accomodate unpredictable fluctuations in student quality, was fixed on the basis of what was "about right". The scheme provided that the margins could not be violated without the approval of the Dean of the Faculty. In essence this proposal recognises the need for a constant standard, argues that perfect objectivity is an unattainable ideal and offers a relative stand which is as easy to apply as counting heads.

Clearly this proposal had the appeal of simplicity and certainty but as a consequence lacked flexibility. Could it, therefore, really be said to be fair? Several points may be made against the proposal in this form.

First, while no one denies that the fluctuations experienced by the Faculty are unacceptable, it seems to run contrary to the whole spirit of university teaching to fetter a teacher whose objective should be to improve the teaching in his course, with a fixed pass/fail ratio.

Secondly any scheme such as the one proposed requires a better statistical foundation than guessing at what is "about right" This argument applies not only to the establishment of the pass/fail ratio and the 2½% margin but also, and more strongly, to the subsequent adjustments of the ratios to accomodate course regulation changes (eg. Legal System as a prerequisite). Furthermore, while relative standards may approximate objective standards in large classes, the optional courses in the degree have small classes and the ability of students attracted to those courses may fluctuate unpredictably from year to year. Clearly the pass/fail ratio derives any validity that it has from its power to approximate the objective standard and in order to operate assumes that class ability does not vary greatly. I have demonstrated that this basic assumption cannot stand for the optional courses and accordingly the pass/fail ratio has no validity here.

Thirdly the effect on student morale is often cited, a marginal student who wishes to pass must not only bring himself up to some objective standard but must also overtake one or more of his marginal fellows who may also be trying to improve. In such a situation marginal students are unlikely to want to share their knowledge or their materials for fear that it may predjudice their own chances.

When the McKay proposal was put to the vote it failed to get a majority.' A second meeting of the Faculty failed to provide any solution. The third meeting passed the Dean's compromise proposal without a dissenting voice. The Dean's proposal only applies to the compulsory subjects in the degree (including Company and Family) and the Law Professional courses. The remaining optional courses are to be the subject of study over the next few months to determine whether fixed pass/fail ratios are appropriate for these subjects and if so what they should be.

The important principle in the Dean's proposal is that the examiner has to inform the Dean and the Examiners meeting if he exceeds the 2½% margin but neither can compel him to keep his pass rate within the guidelines.

This does seem to answer some of the objections that I have raised while still being effective enough to persuade Academic B (remember him?) that he has to take cognisance of a Faculty standard.

well student's, I understand that you are Concerned about the relevance and personal satisfaction of your education here ...... what exactly do you want? WE WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL OUR OWN WDUCATION — TO WORK CO-OPERATIVELY WITH OTHER STUDENTS AND TEACHERS IN THE PURSUIT OF THOSE AREAS OF LEARNING WHICH EXTENDOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD WE LINE IN ! That doesn't seem so impossible. We'll let you know Rat bag should be expelled... (mutter mutter) ... bad publicty...(mutter mutter) ... progressive leadership our resposibilty We'll meet them halfway. paint the toilets yellow and give pong room ..... no sense in taking any risk.

One thing that I want to emphasise is that there is a danger that this device will promote complacency among the examiners (assuming that they are ordinary mortals). Even the Dean's scheme is not the complete answer to the vexing question of examining in the Faculty but should, I suggest, be seen as a last resort to be relied on as little as possible. There are other ways of drawing towards an objective standard (eg. a broader basis of assessment, double chance assessment, greater moderation of the question papers before they are confirmed). They may not be the whole answer but they will very likely decrease reliance on the fixed pass/fail ratio and the Faculty should be encouraged to demonstrate their good faith by trying them.

Students have expressed a desire for another opportunity to discuss the fixed pass/ fail ratio. The Law Faculty Club will arrange for a meeting to be held some time in the first week after study-break. As well as providing a forum for suggestions, motions, etc. on the fixed pass/fail ratios, the meeting will also be the time when the bloody-minded can roast their representatives.

Christopher Chapman.

Meeting Wed. 5th July, 12-2 pm., LB 1.