English scaling. (1 Viewer)

[foram]

I DO believe that I can get UAI above 99 if I work at the rate I am doing right now.

A UAI of 99 isn't as hard as people make it out to be.

 

[lyounamu]

A UAI of 99 isn't as hard as people make it out to be.

Yeah, that's right Foram. If I try hard, there is no barrier for me.

Good luck on your quest for UAI of 99+ Foram!

 

[lyounamu]

btw incase you didn't know my subjects were std english, general maths, business studies, business services, economics, accounting, catholic studies and if you put that in SAM you will see that you can get a UAI of 99+ from that

I am so sorry about what I said above. By the way, that's an amazing result!

 

[ccc123]

im pretty sure you can get a UAI of 98+ with any subject combination.

qft.

 

[me121]

im pretty sure you can get a UAI of 98+ with any subject combination.

just barley, and you would need to come 1st (or very high up) (assuming the performance of students doesn't change much) in all your courses.

 

[nottellingu]

OMG lets put an end to this. Its possible to get 100 uai with any subject combination. The point i was trying to make is that if ur talented of doing advanced english then do it. Someone said they did shit subjects and their cousin who did high scaling subjects beat em by 0.55 uai. Now if u had done better subjects u would have beat ur cousin by a considerable amount.

To put what im saying into context. Student A gets 91 in standard english. This is very rare. Only a few kids across the state obtain band 6 in standard english. The kid is obviously good at english and the amount of effort he would've put into standard wouldve been alot. If the kid did advanced english in my opinion, u dont have to agree with me...he wouldve got alot more than 91 !

To fOR3V3RPINKKKK: if u dont mind me asking u a question...if u had to advice a student that wants a 99.9 UAI wat type of subjects would u recommend..std english/adv english, gen math/ext math, buisness/eco, bio/physics ? Which option would make life easier ?

 

[Patar]

I always thought the reason standard english gave out so few band 6s was a combination of a lower callibre and that it scaled right, right down.

I always try and update my knowledge of this Secret Service's scaling and marking methods, but it seems impossible to keep up with them.

Interesting find - but this of course doesn't prove much - http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Students-raw-scores-seen-as-threat-to-HSC/2005/03/11/1110417692293.html

Now, the student there's 64 (raw) English Advanced mark was scaled to 84 on his printed HSC. His English Extension 1 mark went from 66 to 92.
This tell me that Advanced English scales much, much better than I had originally thought.

It's not just English either. Apparently the standard has been lessening across the board. People who were getting 60s and 70s 10 or more years ago are getting 80s and 90s today.

The reason I think that Standard gets so few Band 6s is lower callibre, and that the subject itself, deemed not as 'academically challanging' as English, means that they will get scaled not as much as Advanced English.
So whereas raw mark of 64 in Adv. English is 84 scaled, you might find that, 64 in Standard might be 71.

This is some of my speculation, some of what the Liason officer informed me, and some of what some of the experienced teachers working in their field have said.
We simply may never fully grasp what the BOS does with our marks. I do think if they just let everyone's raw marks sail on through the bell curve would peak somewhere around the 60s, it seems.

I think on this thread, someone's Liason officer said Standard was harder than Advanced? I think she/he meant was, it's harder to get a better scaled mark because of the scaling system.

I plead ignorance though

EDIT: Of course, the person who posted above me is right, its much better choosing what you think you like, and what you are good at. A mix of the two. In the midst of the HSC it often is the case that what you like is what you become good at.
Although, the scaling system is interesting in its own way. Somehow they have to make it fair for everyone, a 100 in Grade B Fishing Studies (I think there is actually a course named that) cannot, ever, be classed equally to a 100 in Physics.

EDIT 2: Having tried the SAM Calculator (why is it 2006? When will my Premium membership come in lol?) I don't think you should base it on that... while a useful academic guide I think it is lacking in some areas, e.g specifying Maths Extension 2 without Maths Extension 1... different cohorts' results, etc.

 

[midifile]

what type of logic is that? usually one would think that a student doing an easier course would get higher marks

They do tend to get higher raw marks, however, after alignment of marks they often end up being lower.

I know this thread is on english scaling, but I was reading something about maths scaling recently. If you want an HSC mark of 96 in mathematics you have to be in the top 1% of the state. If you want the same mark in 4unit maths you have to be in the top 25% of the state. Even though the cohort is smarter in 4 unit, for a smart student it should be easier for them to get in the top 25% than the top 1%. This also means there is room for silly mistakes and whatever, because the loss of a few marks won't make those high marks unachievable, whereas in mathematics, the loss of a few marks may cause you to drop from the top 1% to the top 5% or something (i just cam e up with that number - dont quote me on it).

The same can be said for english. To get a band 6 in standard you have to be one of the top performing students, so any stupid mistakes, unexpected questions or areas where you easily lose marks could ruin your chances of getting a high result. On the other hand, there is more room for such mistakes in advanced, allowing students to get higher aligned marks, even if their raw marks were lower.

 

[midifile]

what has that got to do with Advanced being easier to get higher marks than Standard?

Seriously??

I already said that it was an example. But it is a way to look at how raw marks affects alignment. I'm sorry if it doesnt make sense to you, but really, in any subjects that is considered 'high scaling' there is always more room for error, becuase the top raw marks are not 100, 99, 98 etc etc. In 'easy' subjects these will be the top marks, so the loss of a few points will cause your position in the canditure to decrease by more than when the raw marks are more spread out.

And i'm sorry that I do not have evidence as you have requested - I'm sure you know that the BOS doesnt just hand out raw marks to people.

 

[me121]

I always thought the reason standard english gave out so few band 6s was a combination of a lower callibre and that it scaled right, right down.

scaling has nothing to do with it. they give out less band 6's simply because very few produce work that the markers consider to be band 6 work.

Now, the student there's 64 (raw) English Advanced mark was scaled to 84 on his printed HSC. His English Extension 1 mark went from 66 to 92.
This tell me that Advanced English scales much, much better than I had originally thought.

Well, the consensus of people, (including the Board and UAC) refer to this process as aligning. You probably shouldn't name it scaling because people interpret that as the scaling of marks for the UAI.

When people say scaling, then mean for the UAI. The above mark change is unlrelated to the scaling for the UAI, it is mearly a relationship between the raw exam mark and aligned exam mark

I always thought that they were aligned the same way? i.e. same raw mark = same aligned mark for both std and adv. the thing is that the board uses paper 1 to put the paper 2 marks on the same scale. and as adv outperforms std in paper 1, std's paper 2 marks become generally lower than adv's paper 2 marks.

 

[midifile]

but you can get a UAI of 99+ with almost any subject combination so really you are not limited by that much.

Did I ever say that it wasnt possible to get a UAI of 99+ with any subject combination? It is possible and I believe that, so I dont know why that you are bringing it up as I never mentioned it. But now that you did... I believe that you can get high UAIs with 'low scaling subjects' and you prove it, because as far as I have gathered you got a good UAI with 'low scaling subjects' (your words not mine). And good on you and everything, but generally, people with higher scaling subjects do get higher UAIs.

yeah this makes it really hard to believe you.

And really i dont care if you dont believe me. Really, what goes on in the moderation of HSC marks no longer affects you as you have already finished your HSC, so I dont see why you care so much. I believe that my subject combination will be of benefit to me and thats all I care about. It doesnt matter to me that you did well with low scaling subjects, but most of mine are better scaling, and I know that the moderation process will work to my advantage.

 

[midifile]

no but my point was that because you can get a UAI of 99+ with almost any subject combination you arn't really limited with the subjects that you take. i never said that you said it, it was my counter argument.



http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=170392



but youre agrument cannot be valid (according to Aristole's/ Toumin's theory) unless you back up your statement. but you are right i dont really care that much, but i dont see why i can't have my say.

Yeah. What that thread proves is exactly what we were saying about it being possible to get a good UAI with low scaling subjects. But I have also looked at that thread, and if you scroll down a bit you will see what undalay posted where the marks were 80 instead of 90 and the 13.1 point difference in UAI between high and middle scaling subjects.

Really all that proves is that if you are doing high scaling subjects you do not have to get the best marks to get a high UAI, while if you are doing low scaling subjects, it is possible to get a high UAI, but you HAVE to get great marks. Mediocre or okay marks will cause you to get a mediocre UAI. And thats pretty much my point - that there is more room for error in high scaling subjects becuase you can get lower marks and still do well. And there is my evidence making my arguement valid according to Aristole/Toumin theory.

 

[lyounamu]

fOR3V3RPINKKKK reminds me of myself. I always keep arguing until I feel better. However,when I get proven right, I suddenly feel bad about not being able to debate any more.

 

[midifile]

but you asked me to prove whether or not you can get a high UAI with any subject combination.

what has that got to do with proving whether or not high scaling subjects get high marks? that has got to do with the other thread not this thread and also ive already replyed to that (on the other thread)
[comment] and before you go saying that that was youre counter argument. counter argument means that you agrue what the person has said rather than make up your own arguments[/comment]


No you still have to get pretty high marks even with low scaling subjects. Also you are not taking into consideration the level of difficulty of the subjects.

I dont even know why we are argueing about this. Every time I post something you try and bring up things that I never even mentioned. Firstly, I never asked you to prove anything, I agreed with you about doing well with low scaling subjects. Secondly you were the one who brought in the issue of UAIs and other subjects, not me. Thirdly, who cares how I argue - this isnt some type of formal debate, it is a free discussion. Fourthly, I said that you HAVE to get high marks in low scaling subjects, so you are agreeing with me.

So maybe you believe that you have the whole scaling thing down pat, but you dont really seem to understand what I am saying.

 

[midifile]

Really.. I think I'm gonna drop this now, not because I believe I'm wrong, but just for the fact that we are not getting anywhere, but rather going around in circles.

No matter if you are doing advanced or standard, you should be aiming for the highest mark possible, because despite all the moderation and scaling and everything, higher marks are always better than lower marks.

 

[midifile]

finally we truly agree on something

 

[Patar]

I always thought that they were aligned the same way? i.e. same raw mark = same aligned mark for both std and adv. the thing is that the board uses paper 1 to put the paper 2 marks on the same scale. and as adv outperforms std in paper 1, std's paper 2 marks become generally lower than adv's paper 2 marks.

That quote wasn't in my post, so I'm afraid I am not on the same page with you there.

You're right in that there is fewer band 6s because there isnt enough quality in the responses to get band 6s - but that's after scaling. A standard student might get a raw mark of 92 but because the course isn't as academically challanging as Physics for example, a raw mark of 92 would not equate to a raw mark of 92 in Physics, if you know what I'm saying.
So to be fair, they scale standard english down and physics up. Whether the callibre was higher or not in Physics, the actual course is much harder.
The same happens with Advanced English.

It is a combination of lower callibre + 'low-scaling'/less challenging subject that brings Standard Band 6s to a low minimum. In fact I think to get
a Band 6s you have to be scoring a very high raw mark!

EDIT: It is also very hard to actually fully realise what the BOS does with the marks - it would appear its based on your cohort as well as yourself, how much that rank is really worth, and which subjects are 'not as well scaled' as others. I think you can do well in lower scaling ones but you have to get that higher mark too. It's all what you like doing in the end, isn't it?