Can SAM give a rough estimate for 04ers? (1 Viewer)

[AM04]

I am currently doing my HSC this year. If i enter my assessment averages to be calculated, will that give any realistic indication, estimation or speculation of my UAI result for the end of the year?

Ash

 

[jm1234567890]

As i said in the JUAIseek readme.

In my opinion the most accurate estimate for 04er's is the 2003 data. Since, there have been several aligning chages from 01 and 02 so that data is now irrelavent if you didn't accelerate those years.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by jm1234567890
there have been several aligning chages from 01 and 02 so that data is now irrelavent

Originally posted by AM04
I am currently doing my HSC this year. If i enter my assessment averages to be calculated, will that give any realistic indication, estimation or speculation of my UAI result for the end of the year?

SAM wasn't designed to predict UAIs. It is only able to estimate how you would have performed in previous years. It is up to you to decide whether or not this is a valid indication of how you will perform this year.

Note also that SAM (and most other UAI calculators) do not accept raw marks or assessment marks as input - rather, you should enter aligned HSC marks. The aligned HSC mark is the average of the aligned examination mark and the moderated assessment mark. You would have to estimate this yourself (according to standards packages and so on) if you haven't already completed the HSC.

 

[jm1234567890]

Originally posted by Lazarus

if you enter a mark of 90 for SDD in as a 2001 mark, 2002 mark, and 2003 mark. They will be vastly different. the 2004 scaled mark equiv of 90 in SDD will most closely resemble the 90 in 2003.

thus 2003 is the best estimate. not an average of previous years

 

[Affinity]

no.. there's not much ground to assume that.

I would say SAM gives a pretty good estimate, but don't hold me liable if it is off.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by jm1234567890
the 2004 scaled mark equiv of 90 in SDD will most closely resemble the 90 in 2003.

I have to agree with Affinity - there's simply no rational basis for such a claim. No data concerning 2004 scaled marks even exist yet. There really isn't a 'best' estimate, as such. You need to make some kind of value judgment based on all possible estimates.

 

[Ziff]

What if Year 12 2004 are the worst performing year since the inception of the new HSC? Then the aligning and scaling will be vastly different!

 

[jm1234567890]

Originally posted by Lazarus
I have to agree with Affinity - there's simply no rational basis for such a claim. No data concerning 2004 scaled marks even exists yet. There really isn't a 'best' estimate, as such. You need to make some kind of value judgment based on all possible estimates.

you must agree it will be vastly different to the 2001 mark where there was 0.something% ppl in band 6.

 

[Wilmo]

Originally posted by Ziff
What if Year 12 2004 are the worst performing year since the inception of the new HSC? Then the aligning and scaling will be vastly different!

There is no room for what if's. True it would be "if" it were the case.

But all sources say that we are the best performing year so far.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by jm1234567890
you must agree it will be vastly different to the 2001 mark where there was 0.something% ppl in band 6.

I wouldn't agree to anything of the sort - I have no idea what the distributions of marks will be like.

The only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the parameters for courses with very large candidatures should be fairly stable. But this assumption isn't specific to 2004... it applies across all years.

 

[jm1234567890]

Originally posted by Lazarus
I wouldn't agree to anything of the sort - I have no idea what the distributions of marks will be like.

The only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the parameters for courses with very large candidatures should be fairly stable. But this assumption isn't specific to 2004... it applies across all years.

Yes, it would be stable if they didn't change the aligning process. However, they did for SDD and other courses.

Thus, the conversion of aligned marks --> scaled marks will be in accurate. It is true that I do not know, whether they will change the aligning process for 2004. However, compared to the change over 2-3 years, the change over 1 year would be smaller.

Therefore, averaging the UAIs over 3 years is less meaningful.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by jm1234567890
Yes, it would be stable if they didn't change the aligning process. However, they did for SDD and other courses.

Well, it wasn't the process that was changed - the standards were revised. It only occurred for three courses: Engineering Studies, SDD and VET Retail. I'll agree that the 2003 data might be more useful for those courses only.

Originally posted by jm1234567890
Therefore, averaging the UAIs over 3 years is less meaningful.

The average isn't provided as some kind of 'overall estimate'... I just tried to provide every possible (and yet simple) UAI calculation that I could. I still maintain that it would be unwise to use a single indicator - including an average - in an attempt to predict 2004 UAIs. You should take as much as possible into account.

 

[jm1234567890]

I suppose...

btw, the change for SDD was just in time, without it i wouldn't have gotten allround award

 

[neo o]

I found the estimator to be pretty accurate so far

- Its usually right on the estimates my school dishes out every 6 months..