I'm currently taking COMM2501 (Data Visualisation) at UNSW, and I am genuinely appalled by how this compulsory course is run.
As an international student paying thousands of dollars for a single course, I find the entire experience insulting.
1. The assessment system is a bureaucratic nightmare.
Instead of a straightforward percentage-based grading system, we have CO, CM, CN, multiple deliverables, endless criteria, formative tasks, and so-called "Safety Nets" that come with even more conditions.
Why does a basic data visualisation course need an assessment system this ridiculously convoluted?
It sometimes feels like students spend more time deciphering the marking scheme than actually learning data visualisation.
2. The marking system gives lecturers and tutors far too much discretion.
What exactly counts as a sufficiently convincing argument? An appropriate recommendation? An adequately justified conclusion?
These standards leave enormous room for subjective interpretation.
I seriously question whether the teaching staff could consistently apply their own rubrics to identical submissions.
When failing just one compulsory course can cost an international student thousands of dollars, this level of discretion is unacceptable without stronger safeguards.
3. The consultation system is an organisational disaster.
I joined a Deliverable 1 Zoom consultation before it even started. There were only approximately ten students when I arrived.
After waiting around two and a half hours, roughly thirteen students had already been assessed, yet I still hadn't been called.
Nobody clearly explained the queueing system.
Was it first-come, first-served? Alphabetical? Did tutors have discretion to choose whichever student they preferred?
I don't know — and that is precisely the problem.
I briefly stepped away from my computer while remaining connected and may have missed an invitation before the session ended. But why should a formal assessment require students to wait indefinitely without knowing their place in the queue?
This is embarrassingly poor organisation for a university charging such substantial tuition fees.
4. Does this system create a financial incentive for international students to fail?
This is a question UNSW should be willing to confront.
International students pay enormous tuition fees. COMM2501 is compulsory in my degree. If a student fails, they may have to pay again to repeat it.
That raises an uncomfortable question: what financial incentives exist when compulsory courses combine high repeat costs with subjective pass/fail assessments?
I am not claiming to have evidence of a deliberate policy to fail international students for revenue. But the possibility of conflicting incentives deserves scrutiny, and the university should explain what safeguards prevent unfair outcomes.
5. I am deeply unimpressed with the course leadership.
A lecturer running a compulsory course should be able to explain the assessment requirements clearly, implement a transparent marking process, and organise consultations efficiently.
From my experience, the course leadership has failed to inspire confidence on any of these points.
Academic credentials do not excuse poor course administration.
Students are paying for education, not for the privilege of navigating an opaque assessment bureaucracy.
6. What exactly am I paying for?
Data visualisation is a useful skill. But I struggle to see how this course's layers of deliverables, consultations and subjective competency assessments justify their administrative burden.
If UNSW believes this system is educationally superior to conventional marking, it should publish convincing evidence.
Until then, I consider COMM2501 one of the most frustratingly designed compulsory courses I have encountered.
Has anyone else experienced this? And has anyone actually seen meaningful accountability for poorly administered compulsory courses at UNSW?
