*For those of us who want to know more about the spread of marks in the assignment*

**In short, provided that you didn't fail… you did ok :)**

**Summary of Marks**

Min. : 0.00

1st Qu.:16.50

Median :19.00

Mean :18.98

3rd Qu.:22.00

Max. :28.50

Mode: 19

Standard Deviation: 4.880677

Outliners (1.5x IQR): min - 8.25 (there are no maximum outliners)

**Grade Breakdown:**

`2`

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.

6.00 8.50 12.00 11.09 13.50 14.00

`4`

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.

15.00 16.00 17.50 17.24 18.50 19.00

`5`

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.

19.50 20.00 21.50 20.96 21.75 22.00

`6`

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.

22.50 22.50 23.50 23.48 24.00 25.00

`7`

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.

25.50 25.50 26.00 26.40 27.00 28.50

**Mark breakdown:**

(it tells you how many people got X marks)

**So what does this actually mean?**

Those of us who scored between 14 and 24 are… what you could call… average law students. That is, these results are within 1 standard deviation of the mean. For those of us who scored below 8.25… we share our commiserations as this result is unusually low. It is quite interesting to note that the inter quartile range (IQR) is only 0.5 of a mark larger than the standard deviation, meaning the marking was quite tight.

For those of us who prefer a graphic representation, here is a box and whisker plot of the results…

Some of us might like to see if the results were 'bell curved' - i.e. do they follow a normal distribution?

ps. ignore the 'tart' bit… it was my 4th attempt at importing the data and i was working back through the vowels :P

By the looks of it… the results are normally distributed (left skewed) - so yes, they are 'bell curved' (or we all wrote essays that, when marked, fit into some sort of a normal distribution).

While you could huff and puff over this, its actually not that bad. Since the results are left skewed this probably suggests that the markers were trying to 'push as many of us past the line', failing only those who's assignments were not up to par. You probably knew that… but this is just some evidence to back up your assumption.

Here's a meaningless interesting little tid-bit:

It seems that the larger your student number… the better you could have expected to do on the assignment!

I think that is *more than enough* to quench any desire of knowledge about the assignment before there is an official word from Russell.

One more thing:

It would be interesting to check if a randomised data set is markedly different to the grade-set here. I probably won't be bothered making one… but it would give us an idea how much (if any) the results are 'bell curved'.

Also:

(a) This is of my honest opinion and,

(b) for your private use and without responsibility on the part of this wiki and its members

:)