Math Advanced Prediction/Thoughts (1 Viewer)

[dannyo1]

Where do we reckon the band 2 cutoff for this year would be? Would have to be incredibly low I'd imagine, the band descriptor is " Demonstrates limited knowledge and skills appropriate to the course. Solves simple familiar problems with limited accuracy. Uses some mathematical language, notation, diagrams and graphs." - I know a lot of people were leaving stuff blank in the exam, even some of the better maths kids at my school were stumped.

 

[President KK]

It should be noted that 2013 was probably the same difficulty as today's exam. From a quick look at the questions with my old-syllabus hat on, it honestly seemed to be a difficult paper, back in 2013. I think we can expect very similar scaling as you said.

But we really shouldn't speculate over this kind of stuff - we represent a very minute portion of the state who completed the exam and do not know how everyone felt (but what from what I gauge, people weren't too happy).

how would a 53-60 scale ???

 

[d1zzyohs]

w would a 53-60 scale ???

how would a 53-60 scale ???

40

 

[President KK]

40

/50 or 100 xD
one sparks joy
one does not

 

[d1zzyohs]

/50 or 100 xD

/200

 

[President KK]

/200

might as well differentiate the function 200 for my actual mark atm

 

[d1zzyohs]

might as well differentiate the function 200 for my actual mark atm

jokes on you because maths advanced isn't a calculus course

 

[President KK]

jokes on you because maths advanced isn't a calculus course

last i checked ik i didn't sign up for probability or stats course xD

 

[icycledough]

how would a 53-60 scale ???

From the HSC raw marks database, it seems like a 55 scaled to a 75 2 years ago and a 60 scaled to a 78, so really anywhere in the 70s would be my estimate.

 

[harrowed2]

Here are the Advanced solutions from itute
https://www.itute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021-NSW-ESA-Mathematics-Advanced-Solutions.pdf

 

[uart]

Here are the Advanced solutions from itute
https://www.itute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021-NSW-ESA-Mathematics-Advanced-Solutions.pdf

I always love a controversial one, so I was interested to look at their rounding (to nearest minute) in Q27c. They did as I would have, and rounded 57.14 minutes to 57 minutes. The Matrix solutions however rounded up to the nearest minute, 58 minutes, so as to ensure the rounded solution meet or exceeded the minimum energy requirement.

As time is not an inherently discrete variable, I interpreted the rounding as simply avoiding unnecessary apparent precision in a real world problem with inherently approximate modeling. Matrix however have interpreted the time in minutes as a discrete variable, and looked at the minimum value of that discrete variable needed to satisfy the condition.

Interesting situation, I wonder if both answers (57 and 58) will be accepted?

 

[hiiitsme]

what about 89-91?

 

[hiiitsme]

raw not scaled

 

[Greninja340]

I always love a controversial one, so I was interested to look at their rounding (to nearest minute) in Q27c. They did as I would have, and rounded 57.14 minutes to 57 minutes. The Matrix solutions however rounded up to the nearest minute, 58 minutes, so as to ensure the rounded solution meet or exceeded the minimum energy requirement.

As time is not an inherently discrete variable, I interpreted the rounding as simply avoiding unnecessary apparent precision in a real world problem with inherently approximate modeling. Matrix however have interpreted the time in minutes as a discrete variable, and looked at the minimum value of that discrete variable needed to satisfy the condition.

Interesting situation, I wonder if both answers (57 and 58) will be accepted?

yeh i did 57 as well, but I feel like it might be 58 as at 57 minutes it wouldnt be possible to do the call whilst at 58 minutes it will, so it is the smallest whole minute at which such a call could take place

 

[Jojofelyx]

That's exceptional for a raw mark for any subject ... I would be surprised if that doesn't align to 100

For a math advanced?? Nah no way a raw 93-94 goes to 100. That much in x2 wouldnt go to a 100. But something around 97-98 seems a bit more appropriate. Historically, adv, x1 and x2, maths have all required 97-100 raw to get 100, it just is a subject where a fair few people have been able to do quite well in. There would have to be a significant change in difficulty for 93-94 to go to a 100 in math advanced. Idk, just my opinion tho.

 

[icycledough]

For a math advanced?? Nah no way a raw 93-94 goes to 100. That much in x2 wouldnt go to a 100. But something around 97-98 seems a bit more appropriate. Historically, adv, x1 and x2, maths have all required 97-100 raw to get 100, it just is a subject where a fair few people have been able to do quite well in. There would have to be a significant change in difficulty for 93-94 to go to a 100 in math advanced. Idk, just my opinion tho.

That makes sense actually for Advanced and Extension 1, but I would think it may be a bit lower for Extension 2 (maybe 95+, as it is an incredible feat and very difficult to get a raw mark this high). But if you ae citing it from data, then that makes sense.

 

[Jojofelyx]

That makes sense actually for Advanced and Extension 1, but I would think it may be a bit lower for Extension 2 (maybe 95+, as it is an incredible feat and very difficult to get a raw mark this high). But if you ae citing it from data, then that makes sense.

extension 2 has also tended to be around 98 even for the previous syllabus. I've got a tutor who knows she got over 96 in x2 raw, but got an hsc mark of 99.

 

[StudyerIA]

Does anyone know what happens if you accelerated math last year and say you got 87 raw is the hsc marked calculated against last year's or this year's cohort?

 

[hiiitsme]

Does anyone know what happens if you accelerated math last year and say you got 87 raw is the hsc marked calculated against last year's or this year's cohort?

Last years because it was a different exam therefore it was reflective of your abilities proportional to a cohort assessed with such difficulty