Slightly confused about scaled marks (1 Viewer)

[Giant Lobster]

So the perfect scenario for creating the ultimate in scaling is a subject where all the canditure are crap at, but basically own everything else?

 

[...]

Originally posted by Giant Lobster
So the perfect scenario for creating the ultimate in scaling is a subject where all the canditure are crap at, but basically own everything else?

sounds like it

but problem is, thats very unlikely to happen

edit:
but if the exam is "easy", then majority of the people will tend to do well...

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by Giant Lobster
So the perfect scenario for creating the ultimate in scaling is a subject where all the canditure are crap at, but basically own everything else?

No - they need to own ALL the courses they do, including the one being scaled. Compared to the rest of the state who didn't take that course, anyway.

Originally posted by ...
but if the exam is "easy", then majority of the people will tend to do well...

The marks in all courses are standardised to a common distribution before being scaled - it doesn't matter whether the state does well or does poorly on a particular paper. The only thing that matters is their performance relative to everyone else.

 

[Ragerunner]

I really got to read up more

*looks at Laz*

 

[Giant Lobster]

No - they need to own ALL the courses they do, including the one being scaled. Compared to the rest of the state who didn't take that course, anyway.

... sorry that makes no logical sense atm
Consider this: If everyone doing physics gets band 6 in everyhting else, but band 2 in physics, logically that would suggest physics is unbelievably hard. (i.e. phys will scale ridiculously) Conversely, if everyone doing phys got band 6 in phys and band 2 in eveyrthing else, that would suggest phys is piss easy.(i.e. phys will scale crap) What you're saying is that if everyone doing physics gets band 6 for everything inc. phys, then that would help phys scaling?

 

[Lazarus]

Scaling has nothing to do with the difficulty of a course - forget that notion.

Scaling is based on the ability of the candidature.

In a course with an above-average candidature, it will be harder for an average student to obtain a high rank. These courses will be scaled up.

In a course with a below-average candidature, it will be easier for an average student to obtain a high rank. These courses will be scaled down.

 

[Giant Lobster]

Ok im not trying to argue but i still dont get it...
so based on that, am I entitled to say that low-scaled subjects have a generally dumber canditature than high scaled subjects?

 

[Lazarus]

More or less, yes.

 

[Giant Lobster]

Wow... didnt see that one coming.

Thanks.

 

[jay9nine]

so if your an above average student doing all low scaled subjects and you do very well in all of them like 90 in each will u still get scaled badly?

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by jay9nine
so if your an above average student doing all low scaled subjects and you do very well in all of them like 90 in each will u still get scaled badly?

Not always, since you are near the top in the subject the scaling wont affect you as much (short version... *looks at Laz for longer confusing version)

 

[pigs_can_fly]

i think if ur at the top, u won't be dragged down that much at all, if any, which is why choosing subjects on scaling alone is pretty dumb

 

[Lazarus]

It's possible to compensate for poor scaling with a good performance - in the same way that it's possible to undo good scaling with a poor performance.

 

[pigs_can_fly]

Originally posted by Lazarus
undo good scaling with a poor performance.

lol...so true