LAWS1115 Assignment Results

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

NB. This is for students enrolled in LAWS1115 and not LAWS7230. I'm sorry JD students… but… thats how it is!

Min. : 0.00
1st Qu.:61.50
Median :70.00
Mean :67.17
3rd Qu.:75.00
Max. :90.00

Mark Breakdown:
(it tells you how many people got X marks)

Unfortunately, as this assignment was marked differently to 1114, I am unable to generate meaningful statistics/summaries based on what grade you got (grade breakdown). By 'marked differently' I am referring to the fact that grades appear to discretely apportioned rather than distributed on a continuous scale from 0 - 100.

So what does this actually mean?
Overall, the assignment was done pretty well… however, this may be a little bit confronting for those who fell outside the inter quartile range (IQR). I don't necessarily believe that this is as much of a concern when compared to the torts assignment as the marking was done in discreet segments as opposed to a continuum. Obviously, this presents a greater 'separation of marks' where you have clusters that manipulate the mean. This can clearly be seen by looking at the standard deviation (its 13.39664) which, in the scope of things… is pretty large.
Thus, in order to determine what marks were 'extraordinary', we shall have to apply the 2 standard deviations rule: that most of the marks are within 2 standard deviations of the mean.
In applying this, we find that the range of 2 standard deviations is from 40 - 93… which is most people (ok pretty much all minus the 10 who got 0).

Now i know what your thinking - the guy who is writing this is a complete moron for not taking out the 10 people who got 0 - this obviously skews the results!
- well, you'd be right… except for the fact that I have taken the 10 out - so here is the 'cleaned' set of statistics:

Min. :46.00
1st Qu.:65.00
Median :70.00
Mean :69.91
3rd Qu.:75.00
Max. :90.00

Standard deviation: 8.815917
1.5 IQR: 0 - 50 and 90 - 100
2 SD rule: 52 - 87

If you got between 52 and 87 (again… nearly everybody) then you got, what would be considered as a fairly normal assignment mark. For those who got 90 - very well done! You managed to escape the wrath of the populous - give yourselves a pat on the back!
As we can see, cleaning the data really tightens up the standard deviation (spread of marks).

Also, I have some graphs / figures that might assist those with more visual minds:

- this really does show how bunched up the results seem to be. Then again, as these were marked quite discreetly, please take this with a spoonful of sugar.
make of this what you wish
Oh my goodness! it seems as though those who didn't do as-well on the torts assignment really redeemed themselves - put in the extra effort and got a great mark! That or the rest of us slouched after torts and decided that we could hand in any old blabber on the rights debate. One of the two must be correct!

And one more tid-bit that I have found: (As the data was published in anonymised alphabetical order)… you could have expected to do 2 marks on average better if your surname started with an A as opposed to a Z (for your mathy types, the equation was was y = -.003x + 68 … where x is your estimated spot in the course alphabetical order)

(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