today wasn't very good.
So apparently being slightly late in handing in an assignment means you automatically lose 10 marks out of 15 possible marks. I could blame my software; but at the same time I don't mind the fact that it was a late submission, but the judgement in the deduction is extremely questionable.
10 marks for being 10 minutes late. I'm starting to hate the number 10.
It's unfortunate that it's also lectured by the notorious Edith.
am I mistaken? I feel that she is wrong in the way she deducted marks.
the subject outline states:
"Where an assignment is submitted after the specified due time and date, the assignment mark will be penalised at the rate of 10% per day or part thereof. If late assignments are received after marked assignments have been returned, the late assignments will not be awarded any marks."
Her interpretation is that 10% equals to 10 of the total of 15 marks. So, if that were the case, if we were 10 days late, we would be penalised 100 marks then, meaning to say we would have already failed the subject at that moment in time.
Tell me that there isn't something wrong and fundamentally flawed with this logic.
she did tell us this morning when we enquired why we had an automatic fail and she said to read the subject outline and we have read the subject outline.
I have asked other students, lecturers and even the subject co-ordinator and it is a common understanding by them that deduction would be 10% out of a total of 100% for the total marks achievable for that assignment. This would and should be by right the correct interpretation. Her interpretation is very different and I would even go as far as to say as being wrong. And why would the subject outline state 'rate' as well then?
I assume she is purposely being nasty and extreme. It's not that she is a bad lecturer, in fact, she's good. Just that I think she is nasty when it comes to things like this.
In the first place, why should such questionable judgement arise?
Either the university is at fault, or everyone else in general is, or she is.
Either way, the coordinator is useless in such aspect; either he has poor argumentative and reasoning powers, is just lazy to argue right, or he's just a defenseless poor little babe in the face of Edith's wrath.
Tomorrow I shall be having a tute with her.
I do hope she won't bomb us.
Can anyone tell me whether they see logic in her interpretation or why she would do something in such a way?
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
interpretations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If this shit happened to me, I will see it corrected. No ifs, no buts. The subject outlines is clearly in your favour; her interpetation is seriously flawed.
But what can I do? She's like mean now to us and seems to be pouring salt into open wounds. I've already talked to the subject co-ordinator and apparently in her view, that was the worst thing to do. And she told us not to write a letter of appeal. Apparently there's been cases where students have lodged complaints against her but she's always won.
Post a Comment