SDD Scaling (1 Viewer)

[John]

Hey, I'm just wondering, how well does SDD and development scale, compared to other subjects does it scale well, do people get 90's or what...yeah....just a bit of info would be nice, also about IT if you wish...

 

[ezzy85]

http://www.boredofstudies.org/scaling.php

check that out, its got the mean of all the subjects. 25 is average and sdd is 26.1, so its not really bad. i think last year it was something like 0.27% people get a band 6? but thats not necessarily related to scaling. a thread similar to this was posted last year, if youre interested in looking back a few pages for it.

 

[del]

Originally posted by John
Hey, I'm just wondering, how well does SDD and development scale, compared to other subjects does it scale well, do people get 90's or what...yeah....just a bit of info would be nice, also about IT if you wish...

Yep ppl do get over 90.

 

[Beaky]

Originally posted by del
Yep ppl do get over 90.

For instance you del...

 

[John]

Thanks guys.......

 

[VanCarBus]

On that UAC site with scaled marks, IF u get a mark below 80 raw mark, you get scaled down SOOOOOOO badly

 

[enak]

Scaling is bad 'cause soo many people who shouldn't be doing it do it.

 

[Maddogg]

yeah the algorithmns are hard in software and scaling isnt as good as it should be i think... but there are alot of people who should be doing it

 

[JRasnier]

just remember, the marking criteria this year is gonna be different then last year...

 

[Ragerunner]

How so ?

 

[JRasnier]

the marking criteria was getting reviewed as last years was too hard....as i think i had read.....

 

[Ragerunner]

Where did you read this?

I hope they focus more on theory questions rather than using the theory to apply in scenarios.

 

[Winston]

Originally posted by JRasnier
the marking criteria was getting reviewed as last years was too hard....as i think i had read.....

that's true, it was posted last yr in this forum

unfortunately i dont think it applies to us

more so it applies to the 2004 candidates

so once again one more lucky aspect of the '03' HSC peeps

first it's higher UAI's

now for sdd.. ahhh

what's next? LOTE as being a compulsory subject?

lol

 

[Comedy_Al]

Whats LOTE?

 

[Ragerunner]

LOTE = Language Other Than English

 

[Comedy_Al]

Ahhhhh... thanks

 

[Trobocop]

Sorry to burst your bubble guys but its unlikely that the marking criteria will change.

I did the SDD hsc test last year and they told us it would be easier than the year before seeing that about 10 people got in band 6, but it was not an easy test like someone said 0.27% in band 6 last year.

All i can tell you if you go into hsc test with a good rank and assessment mark say in the high 80's you should still get a mark in the 80's even if your likely to only get about 60-70 in the test.

 

[Skywalker]

Originally posted by JRasnier
the marking criteria was getting reviewed as last years was too hard....as i think i had read.....

It's not the marking criteria that's changing, its the band descriptors i.e. to let more people get into band 6. But what band you get doesn't matter anyway, as Ragerunner should know, its your percentiles in the state...

 

[Ragerunner]

Well before everyone sits the SDD exam, many judges go through the paper and deem what they believe a band 5/6 student will put as an answer and do that for every question.

In the end a raw mark will arise that they will deem a band 6/5/4/3/2.

No one ever knows what type of mark this may be as it is never released.

So in the end if they believe a mark of 70/100 is worth a band 6, your mark will be aligned to the 90's to suit the band's.

So i'm assuming that pretty low marks like 60-70 was sufficient for a band 5 after talking to many SDD students who took a guess saying they reckon they got a raw mark around the 60's. Such as Minai. Yet his HSC mark ended up 79 with an estimate of his raw mark of 60/100.

But what we are more worried about isn't the band performance.

The UAC only uses your raw mark and scales that, which is used to determine the UAI.