pass or fail?

well i think if i delay my post any longer i'll probably be dead by monday afternoon, so here goes..

what's the benchmark for a pass or fail for a test/assignment/examination?

i suppose half a year into jc, it's still quite hard to accept 45 (as compared to 50) as the passing mark. But why should 50 (or half the total marks) be seen as a pass, and how is 45 less of a pass than 50?
it seems like we have been accustomed to regarding half the total mark as a the passing mark. case in point: 1 month ago(?), wilson was talking about some race he took part in where there was some point system. the winning team 'failed' in the sense that they didn't manage to score half the maximum points. yup..lousy example, but still..

really, if you think about it, who said that you had to get 50% to pass? its just that at the primary and secondary levels (and maybe kindergarten), we 'failed' if we didnt get half the total. so 7.5/16 for a maths test was a fail, and a 5/10 would be a pass..

but on a happier note, it's now mathematically easier to pass! like if you ignore all other variables (ie. ceteris paribus) we now have a 55% chance of passing! compared to 50%! which is like a 10% increase! (in terms of the 50 la) but on a more realistic note ceteris paribus does not exist in the real world (that would have gotten me 1 mark for econs) which means we need to STUDY so go mug for promos instead of coming here so often..peer pressure is amazing..well that's my second post!