No im talking abt state ranks not school ranks.
they tend to make ppl who go to selective, prestigious private or top 150 schools state ranks bc they’re exams r ‘harder’ and more accurate to the actual hsc
so u cannot have someone from a low school state rank regardless of how well they perform externally/internally
i don't think it works like that?
if someone ranks 1st in chem at their school internally (hoping they're mark is in the 95+), and also gets the highest in chem externally (against the whole state), they're probably gonna state rank. Externally your school rank doesn't matter, it's not like markers researched what school that nesa number goes to?
And I don't think schools can give "easier" exams for trials, since most schools buy papers (or questions) from a place (according to my teachers).
regardless of state ranks...
if you perform trash (like 28/50) in a trash school (a
consistent low ranking school), you're atar is kinda doomed cuz the cohort pulls you down. The reason the cohort pulls you down, is because you're surrounded by academically trash people/people who don't
want or need to try. BUT if a person ranks first or secondish the mark is kept and they aren't subjected to the schools alignment, even if they go to a trash school.
The reason selective schools rank well is because the people who go to them actually try in their studies, they "cohortly perform well", ane remove the "trash" people with exams prior to entry. Similar to other high ranking schools, some private school don't let students pick certain subjects (e.g forcing them to do eng studies instead of eng std, cuz of scaling). scaling is ≠ alignment.
The ranking of a school shows how they consistently perform. Even if you go to a high ranked school, there is still a chance, a very low one, for the entire cohort to perform bad.
ps when i say trash people i mean... not academically talented. no one is trash
this is my understanding, pls correct me if I'm wrong T-T
