Thanks for that Brian, glad to hear there is someone out there on the case.
The stat I would be very interested in is the amount of candidates that passed one or two exams in their first four, as I think this is the part of the exam system that most students find to be the most arbitary. Personally, I passed four different exams on three occassions of sitting my first 4. (I eventually got there, but was very frustrating) On May 1, 9:28 am, brian <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Brian from Griffith here - you raise a point which has been on my mind > for a while now. I'm a statisticy kind of person, and couldn't > believe there were not reliable stats in place for pass rates on these > exams. Some of the examiners made note of percentage passes in the > reports (e.g. EU on occasion). > > So, right now, I have some members of the faculty trying to gather > statistics from past students at Griffith but, quite reasonably, one's > results, as noted above can be very personal. I considered about a > dozen forms of questions which could assist in data gathering, but the > only really sensible one was "how many subjects did you pass first > time", which I would then hope to express as a percentage of the > subjects they took at Griffith giving a somewhat decent indicator of > first time success. We are having some success, but to gather a good > data set, the amount of calls required is insane. They've been at it > for about 2 weeks now, and will go for 2 weeks more. > > But it is the one question I get asked (especially by non-law > graduates) all the time, and I don't think anyone has really been able > to answer it - maybe soon I will once we get the data set together. > > Once the data is there, I'll pass it on. > > On stats, however, there is a wide point to note. Suppose, for > example, we received feedback that of 2000 exams (lets say, for the > sake of clarity, this is 500 students by 4 exams), there were 1000 > fails giving a pass rate of 50%. Now, in the ordinary course of > things, that wouldn't be great. However, because of the "you have to > sit 4" rule, my experience is that very many students register for 4, > but only concentrate on 3. Of that group, there are some who don't > sit the exam and those who do sit the exam, but only on a punt after a > little work - i.e. they aren't "counting" it. Thus they "fail" one > but they haven't really attempted it. Hence, the law societies > failure rate wouldn't really reflect "real" failures > > The real statistic - the one that everyone would want - would be the > percentage of failures expressed against "real" attempts at papers, > but then we'd have to classify what it meant to be a "real" attempt > etc which would never happen from the examiners point of view. > > Brian > > GCD --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
