UC Comparison of Grades 2005 09.pdf

ADG

COMPARISON OF
SUBJECT AREA GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS
LEVELS 100 - 400/600: AN UPDATE FOR THE PERIOD 2005 - 2009

Report prepared by Sally Hunter

May 2010

Departmental grade distributions

ADG May 2010

Comparison of subject area grade distributions
Levels 100-400/600: an update for the period 2005-2009


Summary

In this report subject area grade distributions at Levels 100, 200, 300 and 400/600 are
summarised for the five-year period 2005-2009 and compared with Faculty and University
‘norms’ (medians). Data for two consecutive five-year periods (2000-2004 and 2005-2009) are
presented so that checks for evidence of grade inflation can be made.

The analysis shows that:

•  the proportions of “A” grades increase from Level 100 to 200 to 300 to 400/600 and the
proportions of “Fail” grades decrease

•  there are quite different grade distributions between different subject areas in the same
Faculty and in the same department

•  there have been small increases in the proportion of “A” grades awarded over the period
2005-2009 compared with the period 2000-2004, except, overall, at Level 400/600

Departmental grade distribution

2
ADG May 2010

Comparison of subject area grade distributions
Levels 100 – 400/600: an update for the period 2005-2009

Introduction

This report is produced by the ADG (formerly part of UCTL) at the request of the Academic
Administration Committee. The present report is a summary of grading for the five years 2005-
2009. Subject areas are grouped according to Faculties (with Geography, Psychology, and
International Law & Politics the only subjects assigned to two Faculties – the former two, to
Humanities & Social Sciences and to Science, the last to Humanities & Social Sciences and to
Law).

It should be noted that in comparison with the ADG’s annual analysis of grade variability in
Level 100 - 300 courses, the analysis in this report is quite crude in that

•  it does not consider individual courses (and within a department there may be widely varying
grade distributions in different courses at the same level)
•  it does not compare like students in different courses
•  it takes no account of the ‘quality’ of the students in different courses and departments.

However, although departments do not have control over the range of students in their Level 100
courses (a mix of first-years and advancing students, a mix of the very best qualified and the
very under-prepared), all Level 200 students have passed Level 100, all Level 300 students have
passed Level 200, etc. We might therefore expect, at least within similar subject areas in the
same Faculty, similar distributions of grades at a given Level (200 and 300, at least). Apart from
the ‘quality’ of students in a subject area, other factors that may affect grade distributions are the
type of assessment and the relative weights given to in-term work and final examinations. Some
of the differences in grade distributions shown in the tables that follow may, then, be due to

•  different student ‘quality’ in different departments
•  different assessment practices
•  different assessment standards

In this report, then, the proportions of “A”, “B”, “C” and “Fail” grades in each subject area in a
Faculty have been averaged to provide a Faculty median. Subject areas where the proportion of
“A” grades awarded falls into the lowest or highest 10 percentile for the Faculty (and for the
University as a whole) are highlighted. Another point to note is that multiple year summaries of
subject area grading have the virtue of hiding any grading ‘blips’ which might occur in a single
year; on the other hand, they have the disadvantage of obscuring any attempt a subject area may
make to ‘correct’ a grade distribution to bring it into line with Faculty ‘norms’.
Departmental grade distribution

3
ADG May 2010

Results and commentary

Grade Distributions by Faculty in 2005-2009 at Levels 100, 200, 300

Level 100 Median
Level 200 Median
Level 300 Median

%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Faculty
A
B
C
Fail
A
B
C
Fail
A
B
C
Fail
Humanities &
22
38
17
23
31
41
14
12
40
39
10
8
Social Sciences
Science
25
34
20
19
29
34
19
15
34
37
16
8
Law
9
40
18
33
11
49
26
14
23
63
12
3
Creative Arts
33
41
11
15
38
39
14
9
42
42
9
7
Commerce
17
28
24
28
16
36
28
20
21
40
26
13
Engineering &
29
41
18
12
23
41
25
11
25
48
23
6
Forestry
Education
25
41
17
13
31
45
14
11
41
38
11
9
TOTAL
23
35
18
23
29
41
18
13
35
41
12
8
Source: See appended tables
Note: Education has only three years of data; TOTAL row only includes data for subjects/Faculties with
5 years of data

Grade Distributions by Faculty in 2005-2009 at Level 400/600

Level 400/600 Median

%
%
%
%
Faculty
A
B
C
Fail
Humanities & Social Sciences
59
33
3
3
Science
59
33
3
2
Law
59
39
2
<1
Creative Arts
63
29
10
2
Commerce
58
37
4
1
Engineering & Forestry
35
48
15
3
Education
49
39
8
5
TOTAL
57
34
4
2

Source: See appended tables
Note: Education has only three years of data; TOTAL row only includes data for
subjects/Faculties with 5 years of data

Departmental grade distribution

4
ADG May 2010

As might be expected, the median proportions of “A” grades increased from Level 100 to 200 to
300 to 400/600 and the proportions of “Fail” grades decreased. At both Level 100 and Level
200 the Faculties of Law and Commerce awarded a much lower proportion of “A” grades than
did the other Faculties and at Level 100 higher proportions of “Fail” grades. At Level 300, the
Faculties of Humanities & Social Sciences, Science, Creative Arts and Education awarded
significantly higher proportions of “A” grades. The Level 400/600 grading in different Faculties
represents quite different mixes of students which may explain some of the observed grading
differences.

Further analyses: distribution of passing grades only and comparison with the
period 2000-2004

Because it is clear that the proportions of passing grades awarded are affected by the proportion
of failing grades, the numbers of “A”, “B”, and “C” grades have been recalculated as a
proportion of passing grades only for Levels 100-300.

Data are also presented, for comparison, for the previous five-year period, 2000-2004. This
enables checks for evidence of grade inflation to be made.

Level 100 courses

Comparison of grade distributions for 2005-2009 with 2000-2004: all grades
Faculty
Median % “A”
Median % “B”
Median % “C”
Median % “Fail”

05-09
00-04
change
05-09  00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
05-09  00-04
change
Hum./ Soc. Sc.
22
22
-
38
39
-1
17
19
-2
23
20
+3
Science
25
21
+4
34
36
-2
20
24
-4
19
19
-
Law
9
8
+1
40
36
+4
18
25
-7
33
32
+1
Creative Arts
33
29
+4
41
46
-5
11
12
-1
15
12
+3
Commerce
17
14
+3
28
30
-2
24
28
-4
28
28
-
Engin. & For.
29
28
+1
41
33
+8
18
21
-3
12
18
-6
TOTAL
23
22
+1
35
37
-2
18
20
-2
23
21
+2
Level 100
Notes: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004; Faculty of Education courses are excluded from this table

Between the two five year periods there has been a small increase in the proportions of “A”
grades awarded in all Faculties except Humanities & Social Sciences. When the proportions of
passing grades only are recalculated to compensate for the varying proportions of failing grades
awarded in the different Faculties (ranging from 12% to 33% in the 2005-09 period), the data in
the table on the next page are produced. These data show that overall there has been a 7%
increase in the proportion of “A” grades awarded and small decreases in the proportions of “B”
and “C” grades.

Departmental grade distribution

5
ADG May 2010

Comparison of grade distributions for 2005-2009 with 2000-2004: passing grades only
Faculty
Median % “A” grades
Median % “B” grades
Median % “C” grades

05-09
00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
Hum./ Soc. Sc.
27
22
+5
49
53
-4
21
26
-5
Science
33
23
+10
42
44
-2
27
29
-2
Law
14
8
+6
59
53
+6
27
39
-12
Creative Arts
39
28
+11
47
54
-7
13
18
-5
Commerce
24
19
+5
41
44
-3
33
36
-3
Engin. & For.
33
25
+8
47
42
+5
21
33
-12
TOTAL
29
22
+7
45
49
-4
22
28
-6
Level 100
Notes: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004; Faculty of Education courses are excluded from this table

2005-2009 period: “A” grades as a proportion of all grades

At Level 100, the median proportion of “A” grades awarded in a subject area ranged from 9% in
SOWK and LAWS to 49% in MAOR (including only subject areas for which there are five years
of data). ‘Outliers’, as far as the award of “A” grades is concerned, are indicated below (with the
percentage of “A” grades awarded in parentheses).

Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  SOWK (9%), HSRV (12%), AMST (16%)
Faculty median:
22%
Highest 10 percentile:  ANTH (32%), SPAN (35%), MAOR (49%)

Faculty of Science courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  GEOG (19%)
Faculty median:
25%
Highest 10 percentile:  CMDS (42%)

All Level 100 courses (excluding Faculty of Education): “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  LAWS (9%), SOWK (9%), HSRV (12%), MGMT (13%), ECON (16%)
Level 100 median:  23%
Highest 10 percentile:  FORE (33%), FINT (34%), SPAN (35%), CMDS (42%), MAOR (49%)

Although the two previous tables that compare changes in the distribution of grades over the last
decade do not seem to show evidence of significant grade inflation, there have been significant
changes in individual subject areas.

2005-2009 period: “Fail” grades as a proportion of all grades

Outliers as far as the award of “Fail” grades is concerned were:

All Level 100 courses (excluding Faculty of Education): “Fail” grades
Lowest 10 percentile: FINT (6%), SCIM (6%), CMDS (10%), FORE (11%), MAOR (13%)
  Level 100 median: 23%
Highest 10 percentile: SOWK (33%), STAT (33%), AFIS (33%), LAWS (33%), COSC (40%).

Departmental grade distribution

6
ADG May 2010

Level 200 courses

Comparison of grade distributions for 2005-2009 with 2000-2004: all grades
Faculty
Median % “A”
Median % “B”
Median % “C”
Median % “Fail”

05-09
00-04
change
05-09  00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
05-09  00-04
change
Hum./ Soc. Sc.
31
27
+4
41
46
-5
14
16
-2
12
11
+1
Science
29
27
+2
34
40
-6
19
19
-
15
13
+2
Law
11
10
+1
49
40
+9
26
30
-4
14
20
-6
Creative Arts
38
35
+3
39
45
-6
14
15
-1
9
6
+3
Commerce
16
16
-
36
35
+1
28
31
-3
20
19
+1
Engin. & For.
23
22
+1
41
43
-2
25
27
-2
11
8
+3
TOTAL
29
26
+3
41
43
-2
18
19
-1
13
12
+1
Level 200
Notes: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004; Faculty of Education courses are excluded from this table

Between the two five-year periods there has been a small increase in the proportions of “A”
grades awarded in all Faculties except Commerce. Overall, there has been a 3% increase in the
median % of “A” grades awarded. When the numbers of passing grades only are recalculated to
compensate for the varying proportions of failing grades awarded in the different Faculties
(ranging from 9% to 20% in the 2005-09 period), the data in the table below are produced.

Comparison of grade distributions for 2005-2009 with 2000-2004: passing grades only
Faculty
Median % “A” grades
Median % “B” grades
Median % “C” grades

05-09
00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
Hum./ Soc. Sc.
36
31
+5
48
51
-3
14
18
-4
Science
34
32
+2
41
46
-5
23
23
-
Law
13
12
+1
57
50
+7
30
38
-8
Creative Arts
42
37
+5
43
47
-4
15
16
-1
Commerce
20
20
-
45
43
+2
35
38
-3
Engin. & For.
26
24
+2
45
47
-2
29
29
-
TOTAL
33
29
+4
46
48
-2
20
22
-2
Level 200
Notes: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004; Faculty of Education courses are excluded from this table

The data in the table above for proportions of passing grades awarded at Level 200 in the two
periods 2000-04 and 2005-2009 show that overall there has been a small increase in the
proportion of “A” grades awarded and small decreases in the proportion of “B” and “C” grades.

2005-2009 period: “A” grades as a proportion of all grades

At Level 200, the median proportion of “A” grades awarded in a subject area ranged from 11%
in LAWS to 48% in ANTH and CMDS (including only subject areas for which there are five
years of data). Not all Faculties awarded higher proportions of “A” grades at Level 200 than they
did at Level 100 and the School of Law, which operates a selective entry to Level 200, only
Departmental grade distribution

7
ADG May 2010

increased their proportion of “A” grades awarded from 9% at Level 100 to 11% at Level 200.
‘Outliers’ in the awarding of “A” grades are:

Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  CULT (20%), AMST (21%), GEOG (21%)
Faculty median:
31%
Highest 10 percentile: ANTH (48%)

Faculty of Science courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  ELEC (16%)
Faculty median:
29%
Highest 10 percentile:  CMDS (48%)

Faculty of Engineering & Forestry courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile: SOIL (13%)
Faculty median:
23%
Highest 10 percentile: ENMT (34%)

All Level 200 courses (excluding Faculty of Education): “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile: LAWS (11%), SOIL (13%), ECON (14%), MGMT (15%), ELEC (16%),
MSCI (17%)
Level 200 median:  29%
Highest 10 percentile:  SPAN (41%), FREN (44%), FINE ARTS (44%), CMDS (48%), ANTH (48%)

Level 300 courses

Comparison of grade distributions for 2005-2009 with 2000-2004: all grades
Faculty
Median % “A”
Median % “B”
Median % “C”
Median % “Fail”

05-09
00-04
change
05-09  00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
05-09  00-04
change
Hum./ Soc. Sc.
40
34
+6
39
43
-4
10
14
-4
8
9
-1
Science
34
30
+4
37
42
-5
16
15
+1
8
7
+1
Law
23
26
-3
63
64
-1
12
8
+4
3
1
+2
Creative Arts
42
38
+4
42
46
-4
9
13
-4
7
2
+5
Commerce
21
20
+1
40
40
-
26
27
-1
13
14
-1
Engin. & For.
25
23
+2
48
49
-1
23
22
+1
6
7
-1
TOTAL
35
32
+3
41
45
-4
12
15
-3
8
8
-
Level 300
Note: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004: Faculty of Education courses are excluded from this table

Between the two five-year periods there has been a small increase in the proportions of “A”
grades awarded in all Faculties except Law. When the proportions of passing grades only are
recalculated to compensate for the varying proportions of failing grades awarded in the different
Faculties (ranging from 3% to 13% in the 2005-2009 period), the data in the table on the next
page are produced.

Departmental grade distribution

8
ADG May 2010

Comparison of grade distributions for 2005-2009 with 2000-2004: passing grades only
Faculty
Median % “A” grades
Median % “B” grades
Median % “C” grades

05-09
00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
Hum./ Soc. Sc.
44
39
+5
42
49
-7
11
12
-1
Science
37
37
-
44
47
-3
18
16
+2
Law
23
27
-4
65
65
-
12
8
+4
Creative Arts
45
39
+6
46
47
-1
9
14
-5
Commerce
25
23
+2
46
46
-
30
31
-1
Engin. & For.
27
24
+3
50
52
-2
25
24
+1
TOTAL
39
35
+4
45
48
-3
13
16
-3
Level 300
Note: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004: Faculty of Education courses are excluded from this table

2005-2009 period: “A” grades as a proportion of all grades

At Level 300, the median proportion of “A” grades awarded in a subject area ranged from 20%
in a number of subject areas to 76% in RUSS (including only subject areas with five years of
data). ‘Outliers’ in the awarding of “A” grades are:

Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  AMST (26%), TAFS (28%)
Faculty median:
40%
Highest 10 percentile: ARTH (54%), RUSS (76%)

Faculty of Science courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  ELEC (25%)
Faculty median:
34%
Highest 10 percentile:  STAT (52%)

Faculty of Engineering & Forestry courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  ENCH (20%)
Faculty median:
25%
Highest 10 percentile:  ENFO (42%)

All Level 300 courses (excluding Faculty of Education): “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  ECON (20%), MSCI (20%), ENCH (20%), FORE (20%), AFIS (21%)
Level 300 median:  35%
Highest 10 percentile:  ANTH (52%), GRMN (52%), STAT (52%), ARTH (54%), RUSS (76%)

Departmental grade distribution

9
ADG May 2010

Level 400/600 courses

Comparison of grade distributions for 2005-2009 with 2000-2004: all grades
Faculty
Median % “A”
Median % “B”
Median % “C”
Median % “Fail”

05-09
00-04
change
05-09  00-04
change
05-09
00-04
change
05-09  00-04
change
Hum./ Soc. Sc.
59
62
-3
33
30
+3
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
Science
59
61
-2
33
31
+2
3
6
-3
2
3
-1
Law
59
66
-7
39
33
+6
2
1
+1
<1
<1
-
Creative Arts
63
59
+4
29
35
-6
10
6
+4
2
1
+1
Commerce
58
56
+2
37
38
-1
4
4
-
1
2
-1
Engin. & For.
35
37
-2
48
49
-1
15
12
+3
3
3
-
TOTAL
57
57
-
34
34
-
4
6
-2
2
3
-1
Level 400
Notes: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004; Faculty of Education courses are excluded from this table

At Level 400/600, each Faculty has a different mix of students and any between-Faculty
comparisons are probably not very meaningful. Since the failure rate is minimal at this level the
numbers of “A”, “B’, and “C” grades have not been recalculated as a proportion of passing
grades only.

2005-2009 period: “A” grades as a proportion of all grades

‘Outliers’ in the award of “A” grades are:

Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  TAFS (41%), GEOG (47%)
Faculty median:
59%
Highest 10 percentile:  ARTH (74%), JAPA (79%)

Faculty of Science courses: “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  GEOG (47%), MAPH (48%)
Faculty median:
59%
Highest 10 percentile:  MATH (75%), STAT (86%)

All Level 400/600 courses (excluding Faculty of Education): “A” grades
Lowest 10 percentile:  ENTR (18%), ENCH (31%), ENEL (32%), ENME (33%), ENNR
(34%), ENCI (36%)
Level 400/600 median: 57%
Highest 10 percentile:  CLAS (72%) ARTH (74%), JAPA (79%), MATH (75%), STAT (86%)

Conclusion:

In this report the grade distributions of departments and subject areas for Levels 100 – 400/600
are summarised for the five-year period 2005-2009. Faculty and University medians for “A”,
“B”, “C” and “Fail” grades are tabulated and ‘outliers’ in the award of “A” grades identified. For
Level 100-300 subject areas the numbers of “A”, “B” and “C” grades have been recalculated as
proportions of passing grades only.
Departmental grade distribution
  10
ADG May 2010

In comparison with the period 2000-2004, only small changes in the median proportions of “A”, “B”,
“C” and “Fail” grades have occurred in the different Faculties – with an increase in the proportions
of “A” grades awarded at all levels except 400/600. Finally, in the tables on the following page,
grade distributions for Levels 100, 200 and 300 for three consecutive five-year periods are presented.
The data show a consistent increase in the proportion of “A” grades awarded at all Levels and a
decrease in the proportions of “B” and “C” grades awarded.

Departmental grade distribution
11
ADG May 2010

COMPARISON OF FACULTY GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR 2005-09, 2000-04 AND
1995-99: ALL FACULTIES EXCEPT EDUCATION

Level 100 grade distributions 2005-09, 2000-04, and 1995-99: all Faculties

05-09
00-04
Change 00-04 to
05-09  95-99
Change 95-99
05-09
to 05-09
Median % “A”
23
22
+1
23
19
+4

Median % “B”
35
37
-2
35
37
-2

Median % “C”
18
20
-2
18
21
-3

Median % “Fail”
23
21
+2
23
23
-

Notes: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004, 95-99 = 1995-1999

Level 200 grade distributions 2005-09, 2000-04, and 1995-99: all Faculties

05-09
00-04
Change 00-04 to
05-09  95-99
Change 95-99
05-09
to 05-09
Median % “A”
29
26
+3
29
24
+5

Median % “B”
41
43
-2
41
43
-2

Median % “C”
18
19
-1
18
22
-4

Median % “Fail”
13
12
+1
13
12
+1

Notes: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004, 95-99 = 1995-1999

Level 300 grade distributions 2005-09, 2000-04, and 1995-99: all Faculties

05-09
00-04
Change 00-04 to
05-09  95-99
Change 95-99
05-09
to 05-09
All faculties

Median % “A”
35
32
+3
35
30
+5

Median % “B”
41
45
-4
41
45
-4

Median % “C”
12
15
-3
12
17
-5

Median % “Fail”
8
8
-
8
8
-

Notes: 05-09 = 2005-2009, 00-04 = 2000-2004, 95-99 = 1995-1999

Departmental grade distributions

ADG May 2010

Distribution of grades at the 100 level, 2005-2009

%
%
%
%
Total no.

“A” grades
“B” grades
“C” grades
“Fail” grades
of grades
Faculty of Humanities &

Social Sciences
SOWK
9
30
28
33
679
HSRV
12
33
24
30
858
CULT*
14
39
21
27
362
AMST
16
43
17
23
1176
SOCI
17
44
16
24
2829
TAFS
17
42
17
23
511
COMS
18
45
17
20
2022
HIST
19
41
15
25
3090
PSYC
19
41
22
18
6776
GEOG
19
44
22
15
2287
RELS
20
39
14
27
767
GEND
20
48
11
21
912
ITAL
20
25
24
31
118
EULC*
21
34
10
34
58
ARTH
21
38
16
26
1589
HLTH
22
43
18
17
363
POLS
22
43
16
20
3326
FREN
22
36
24
19
1157
GRMN
24
40
18
18
548
ENGL
25
30
18
27
3044
PHIL
25
34
13
29
2840
CLAS
26
32
15
27
2262
CHIN
27
30
18
26
562
LING
30
29
17
24
1086
RUSS
31
33
11
26
178
HAPS*
31
29
10
30
105
JAPA
32
32
18
18
1887
ANTH
32
39
8
21
1382
EURO*
34
43
7
16
96
SPAN
35
30
17
19
1182
PACS*
42
30
9
19
43
TREO*
46
26
13
15
724
MAOR
49
33
5
13
1623

Mean (SD)
23 (8)
37 (6)
17 (5)
23 (5)

Median
22
38
17
23

Range
9-49
25-48
5-28
13-33

Faculty of Science

GEOG
19
44
22
15
2287
PSYC
19
41
22
18
6776
BIOL
21
38
22
20
4963
PHYS
21
34
27
17
5456
COSC
23
21
16
40
3780
STAT
24
25
18
33
4974
ASTR
25
31
20
25
709
MATH
25
28
22
25
11203
ANTA
26
35
20
19
1325
GEOL
26
40
17
17
2191
CHEM
29
28
19
23
4825
SCIM
31
56
7
6
215
CMDS
42
34
14
10
989

Mean (SD)
25 (6)
35 (9)
19 (5)
21 (9)

Median
25
34
20
19

Range
19-42
21-56
7-27
6-40

Faculty of Law

LAWS
9
40
18
33
2964
Departmental grade distribution
13
ADG May 2010

%
%
%
%
Total no.

“A” grades
“B” grades
“C” grades
“Fail” grades
of grades
Faculty of Creative Arts

MUSI
32
32
12
24
1644
FINT
34
50
10
6
317
  Mean (SD)
33 (1)
41 (13)
11 (1)
15 (13)

  Median
33
41
11
15

  Range
32-34
32-50
10-12
6-24

Faculty of Commerce

MGMT
13
37
26
25
7861
ECON
16
28
30
26
8410
AFIS
18
28
20
34
10861
MSCI
20
27
23
30
2367

Mean (SD)
17 (3)
30 (4)
25 (4)
29 (4)

Median
17
28
24
28

Range
13-20
27-37
20-30
25-34

Faculty of Engineering &

Forestry
ENGR
24
42
20
14
4566
EMTH*
28
37
22
12
2280
FORE
33
40
16
11
919
  Mean (SD)
29 (6)
41 (2)
18 (2)
12 (2)

  Median
29
41
18
12

  Range
24-33
40-42
16-20
11-14

Faculty of Education

EDCS*
11
44
26
18
603
EDED*
12
43
27
18
224
EDPS*
15
48
18
19
599
EDUC
16
38
23
23
5984
EDHL*
20
34
24
22
808
EDTE*
20
40
20
19
722
EDEC*
21
34
24
21
696
EDIT*
23
45
23
9
781
EDMI*
24
47
17
12
2538
EDMU*
24
44
20
12
825
EDWH*
27
56
5
12
41
EDSS*
31
42
15
12
769
EDSC*
36
31
16
17
984
EDEN*
38
40
12
10
1514
EDSP*
39
42
6
14
597
EDML*
39
43
5
13
772
EDPE*
40
37
8
15
1206
EDPI*
42
36
15
7
371
EDAR*
50
28
10
12
979
EDMS*
54
29
7
10
762
  Mean (SD)
29 (12)
40 (7)
16 (7)
15 (5)

  Median
25
41
17
13

  Range
11-54
28-56
5-27
7-23

TOTAL

Mean (SD)
24 (8)
36 (7)
18 (5)
22 (7)

Median
23
35
18
23

Range
9-49
21-56
5-30
6-40

Note: all means and medians (except in the Faculty of Education) only include those subject areas that have 5 years
of data. * indicates subjects with less than 5 years of data.

Departmental grade distribution
  14
ADG May 2010

Distribution of grades at the 200 level, 2005-2009

%
%
%
%
Total no.

“A” grades
“B” grades
“C” grades
“Fail” grades
of grades
Faculty of Humanities &

Social Sciences
CULT
20
50
17
14
123
AMST
21
42
19
18
1140
GEOG
21
50
19
10
1908
CHIN
23
33
28
16
657
COMS
23
49
15
13
1910
PSYC
24
41
21
13
4311
TAFS
27
50
14
9
514
GEND
28
45
11
16
366
POLS
28
50
12
10
2321
SOWK
29
54
10
7
444
HSRV
30
44
18
8
386
HLTH
30
40
20
10
20
PHIL
31
41
13
15
1343
HIST
31
44
13
12
2150
EURO
31
41
17
11
331
ENGL
31
43
14
11
1694
JAPA
33
39
18
10
605
SOCI
33
41
12
15
2522
LING
34
30
16
20
702
CLAS
36
39
12
14
859
EULC*
36
45
0
18
33
MAOR
36
41
9
13
492
GRMN
37
41
13
8
307
ARTH
38
36
12
14
786
RELS
38
39
7
15
268
RUSS
40
42
5
13
151
SPAN
41
41
14
4
539
FREN
44
41
7
8
236
ANTH
48
39
4
10
550
HAPS*
48
36
8
8
25
TREO*
52
30
8
10
110

Mean (SD)
32 (7))
42 (5)
14 (5)
12 (4)

Median
31
41
14
12

Range
20-48
30-54
4-28
4-20

Faculty of Science

ELEC
16
34
30
21
274
ANTA
17
59
10
13
127
BIOL
20
44
19
16
4451
GEOG
21
50
19
10
1908
PSYC
24
41
21
13
4311
COSC
25
29
23
22
3552
MATH
27
29
23
21
3748
STAT
31
27
19
23
917
GEOL
31
51
13
5
2263
BCHM
32
35
20
14
909
ASTR
33
32
18
18
146
BIOS*
33
46
14
7
252
PHYS
35
30
21
14
1287
CHEM
36
32
16
16
1739
CMDS
48
42
9
1
1698

Mean (SD)
28 (9)
38 (10)
19 (6)
15 (6)

Median
29
34
19
15

Range
16-48
27-59
9-30
1-23

Faculty of Law

LAWS
11
49
26
14
5023

Departmental grade distribution
15
ADG May 2010

%
%
%
%
Total no.

“A” grades
“B” grades
“C” grades
“Fail” grades
of grades
Faculty of Creative Arts

MUSI
33
41
14
12
525
FINE ARTS
44
37
14
6
254
  Mean (SD)
38 (8)
39 (3)
14 (<1)
9 (5)

  Median
38
39
14
9

  Range
33-44
37-41
14
6-12

Faculty of Commerce

ECON
14
27
36
23
5724
MGMT
15
41
27
17
7750
MSCI
17
33
29
21
2284
AFIS
21
38
21
19
7937
FINC*
25
38
23
13
697

Mean (SD)
17 (3)
35 (6)
28 (6)
20 (2)

Median
16
36
28
20

Range
14-21
27-41
21-36
17-23

Faculty of Engineering &

Forestry
SOIL
13
28
36
22
190
ENME
18
42
31
9
4191
ENCH
19
43
28
10
2021
ENEL
22
34
27
16
1954
ENNR
22
44
22
12
647
ENCI
23
39
28
10
6041
FORE
25
45
19
12
679
EMTH
27
39
23
11
4337
ENFO
27
55
15
3
33
ENMT
34
41
19
6
127
ENCE*
64
26
7
3
61

Mean (SD)
23 (6)
41 (7)
25 (6)
11 (5)

Median
23
41
25
11

Range
13-34
28-55
15-36
3-22

Faculty of Education

EDUC
18
39
23
20
4186
EDMS8
22
49
17
12
643
EDTL*
22
50
13
15
499
EDPS*
23
51
15
10
541
EDHL*
23
39
15
22
713
EDEC*
23
50
15
12
1130
EDTE*
25
55
11
10
616
EDED*
29
51
14
6
382
EDML*
30
47
13
10
618
EDSS*
32
42
16
10
674
EDEN*
32
35
18
16
1402
EDSP*
33
47
6
14
1009
EDSC*
35
43
14
9
823
EDMI*
36
48
12
3
1129
EDPE*
44
30
14
11
679
EDAR*
45
38
9
7
609
EDPI*
46
37
8
9
328
EDMU*
48
37
3
11
682
Mean (SD)
32 (9)
44 (7)
13 (5)
12 (5)

Median
31
45
14
11

Range
18-48
30-55
3-23
3-22

TOTAL

Mean (SD)
29 (9)
41 (7)
18 (8)
13 (5)

Median
29
41
18
13

Range
11-50
27-59
0-36
0-23

Note: all means and medians (except in the Faculty of Education) only include those subject areas that have 5 years
of data.  * indicates subjects with less than 5 years of data.

Departmental grade distribution
  16
ADG May 2010

Distribution of grades at the 300 level, 2005-2009

%
%
%
%
Total no.

“A” grades
“B” grades
“C” grades
“Fail” grades
of grades
Faculty of Humanities &

Social Sciences
AMST
26
43
16
16
301
TAFS
28
56
12
4
197
HSRV
30
46
14
10
163
SOWK
30
53
14
2
610
PSYC
30
46
16
8
3026
GEOG
31
53
13
4
1600
GEND
31
59
5
5
119
TREO*
31
41
14
13
70
COMS
32
46
12
10
1127
MAOR
34
39
9
18
164
POLS
35
48
7
10
1489
CULT
38
32
13
18
85
CHIN
38
34
18
10
148
ENGL
40
41
11
8
1040
LING
40
42
12
5
273
JAPA
41
38
16
6
280
CLAS
43
37
10
10
511
HIST
44
41
7
9
1063
RELS
44
28
7
21
162
PHIL
46
33
9
12
412
SOCI
47
35
8
11
989
EURO
50
38
5
7
74
SPAN
51
41
5
3
275
FREN
51
35
11
3
167
ANTH
52
31
6
10
296
GRMN
52
38
7
3
115
ARTH
54
35
6
5
370
EULC*
59
27
9
5
22
RUSS
76
21
3
0
29

Mean (SD)
41 (11)
40 (9)
10 (4)
8 (5)

Median
40
39
10
8

Range
26-76
21-59
3-18
0-21

Faculty of Science

ELEC
23
35
29
13
225
BIOL
28
51
13
7
2017
COSC
28
36
18
17
2221
PSYC
30
46
16
8
3026
GEOG
31
53
13
4
1600
GEOL
32
52
12
4
1520
CHEM
34
37
18
10
789
MATH
35
29
18
19
1713
BCHM
35
47
12
5
427
ASTR
36
36
19
8
83
PHYS
43
30
17
9
762
CMDS
46
45
7
2
1563
STAT
52
29
12
7
368
SCIE*
82
13
0
5
39

Mean (SD)
35 (8)
41 (9)
16 (5)
9 (5)

Median
34
37
16
8

Range
23-52
29-53
7-29
2-19

Faculty of Law:  LAWS
23
63
12
3
7094
Faculty of Creative Arts

MUSI
39
43
10
8
461
FINE ARTS
45
42
7
6
221
  Mean (SD)
42 (4)
42 (<1)
9 (2)
7 (2)

  Median
42
42
9
7

Range
39-45
42-43
7-10
6-8

Departmental grade distribution
  17
ADG May 2010

%
%
%
%
Total No.

“A” grades
“B” grades
“C” grades
“Fail” grades
of grades
Faculty of Commerce

FINC*
18
44
24
14
311
ECON
20
31
28
21
3158
MSCI
20
37
28
15
1110
AFIS
21
44
24
12
4765
MGMT
25
53
17
5
4815

Mean (SD)
21 (2)
41 (9)
24 (5)
13 (7)

Median
21
40
26
13

Range
20-25
31-53
17-28
5-21

Faculty of Engineering &

Forestry
ENCH
20
49
25
6
1991
FORE
20
51
23
5
347
ENEL
22
39
29
10
3005
ENME
24
45
25
7
5033
ENNR
26
49
20
5
441
ENCI
26
43
23
8
6874
EMTH*
27
45
21
8
399
ENMT
32
47
17
4
133
ENFO
42
52
6
0
69

Mean (SD)
27 (7)
47 (4)
21 (7)
6 (3)

Median
25
48
23
6

Range
20-42
39-52
6-29
0-10

Faculty of Education

EDPF*
24
62
5
10
21
EDED*
24
47
21
8
1291
EDSN*
27
33
28
13
132
EDUC
27
43
21
9
2486
EDEC*
32
45
17
6
986
EDTL*
32
46
11
11
1888
EDRT*
35
49
3
14
381
EDIC*
35
38
9
19
545
EDIT*
35
50
9
6
181
EDPS*
37
48
11
4
704
EDTE*
37
37
15
12
363
EDML*
40
44
12
5
43
EDHP*
41
45
15
0
150
EDHL*
41
33
12
14
433
EDPI*
41
37
7
15
582
EDSP*
41
41
9
9
454
EDLE*
44
34
8
13
378
EDAR*
44
41
7
8
424
EDSS*
48
34
12
7
86
EDMS*
49
20
22
9
1263
EDCL*
51
25
1
23
271
EDEN*
55
26
11
8
1056
EDSC*
56
31
5
8
379
EDMU*
61
27
3
9
438
EDPE*
64
27
2
7
750
  Mean (SD)
41 (11)
38 (10)
11 (7)
10 (5)

  Median
41
38
11
9

  Range
24-64
20-62
1-28
0-23

TOTAL

Mean (SD)
36 (11)
42 (9)
14 (7)
8 (5)

Median
35
41
12
8

Range
20-76
21-63
3-29
0-21

Note: all means and medians (except in the Faculty of Education) only include those subject areas that have 5 years
of data. * indicates subjects with less than 5 years of data.
Departmental grade distribution
  18
ADG May 2010

Distribution of grades at the 400/600 level, 2005-2009

%
%
%
%
Total no.

“A” grades
“B” grades
“C” grades
“Fail” grades
of grades
Faculty of Humanities &

Social Sciences
TAFS
41
36
14
9
44
HSRV*
42
38
12
8
48
GEOG
47
47
3
2
524
CHIN
49
24
16
10
49
HIST
50
42
5
3
365
COMS
52
44
4
0
212
SOWK
54
38
5
3
1250
AMST
56
33
4
7
57
SOCI
57
36
3
4
182
RELS
57
22
3
17
94
PHIL
58
35
4
3
267
PSYC
59
37
2
2
1157
LING
60
33
4
3
102
DIPL
60
36
3
1
298
ANTH
61
31
1
7
121
ENGL
62
30
3
5
312
POLS
63
37
0
0
440
LANC*
64
36
0
0
22
MAOR
67
22
4
8
51
EURO
70
27
2
0
122
CULT
71
24
2
2
41
CLAS
72
23
3
1
152
ARTH
74
22
2
3
119
HAPS*
79
21
0
0
33
JAPA
79
20
1
0
90

Mean (SD)
60 (9)
32 (8)
4 (4)
4 (4)

Median
59
33
3
3

Range
41-79
20-47
0-16
0-17

Faculty of Science

GEOG
47
47
3
2
524
MAPH
48
27
13
12
136
ENGE
51
44
3
1
671
BIOL
52
41
5
2
668
CHEM
52
36
12
1
459
HLTH
52
43
3
1
402
ENVR
53
46
1
1
137
COSC
53
31
8
8
1181
MDPH
55
28
9
8
239
PSYC
59
37
2
2
1157
CMDS
63
33
3
<1
1728
ASTR
63
20
7
10
41
BCHM
64
33
3
0
181
HAZM
64
33
1
2
118
PHYS
65
26
7
3
399
GEOL
65
30
3
2
407
APSY
68
30
1
1
368
MATH
75
17
2
6
347
STAT
86
10
2
2
206

Mean (SD)
60 (10)
32 (10)
5 (4)
3 (4)

Median
59
33
3
2

Range
47-86
10-47
1-13
<1-12

Departmental grade distribution
19
ADG May 2010

%
%
%
%
Total no.

“A” grades
“B” grades
“C” grades
“Fail” grades
of grades
Faculty of Law

ILAP
55
43
2
0
233
LAWS
63
34
2
1
360

Mean (SD)
59 6)
39 (7)
2 (<1)
<1 (<1)

Median
59
39
2
<1

Range
55-63
34-43
2
0-1

Faculty of Creative Arts

ARTC
49
29
11
11
35
MUSI
63
29
6
2
147
FINE ARTS
63
25
10
2
293

Mean (SD)
58 (8)
28 (2)
9 (3)
5 (5)

Median
63
29
10
2

Range
49-63
25-29
6-11
2-11

Faculty of Commerce

MSCI
48
47
5
0
193
ECON
49
41
8
1
479
FINC*
56
29
15
0
48
MBAD
58
37
4
2
2331
MGMT
63
34
2
1
931
AFIS
69
30
1
<1
555

Mean (SD)
57 (9)
38 (7)
4 (3)
1 (1)

Median
58
37
4
1

Range
48-69
30-47
1-8
0-2

Faculty of Engineering &

Forestry
ENTR
18
48
25
8
277
ENCH
31
50
16
3
1557
ENEL
32
41
21
6
2897
ENGR*
32
49
16
3
294
ENME
33
48
16
3
4065
ENNR
34
49
15
3
645
ENCI
36
44
17
4
4685
ENFO
38
54
7
1
99
ENMG
40
54
5
1
561
ENFE
44
45
9
3
348
FORE
47
45
6
2
827
EMTH*
52
43
5
0
21
ENMT*
55
37
6
1
145

Mean (SD)
35 (8)
48 (4)
14 (7)
3 (2)

Median
35
48
15
3

Range
18-47
41-54
5-25
1-8

Faculty of Education

EDTL*
37
40
13
9
267
EDEL*
49
39
8
5
202
EDPE*
49
25
18
8
79
EDCT*
55
40
5
1
88
EDUC
56
35
5
4
841
  Mean (SD)
49 (7)
36 (6)
10 (6)
5 (3)

  Median
49
39
8
5

  Range
37-56
25-40
5-18
1-9

TOTAL

Mean (SD)
56 (13)
35 (10)
6 (6)
3 (4)

Median
57
34
4
2

Range
18-86
10-54
0-25
0-17

Note: all means and medians (except in the Faculty of Education) only include those subject areas that have 5 years
of data.  * indicates subjects with less than 5 years of data.

Departmental grade distribution
  20
ADG May 2010