lyounamu
Reborn
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,998
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
You are right. I have got no idea how they determine scaling because it just doesn't make sense how they can determine the "calibre of the students". It's not like they can just come up with magical number and go "here we go - this is the scaling". They really have got nothing to form the basis for the scaling because every year, the exam is different meaning that the results will be different.Pwnage101 said:you're right, BUT How do they compare this ' calibre of the students ' - its almost certain that the average mark for, say, MX2 is MUCH LESS THAN the average mark of chemistry (i'm talking RAW marks here in the externals)
so according to u, chem should scale better cause obvioiusly the candidates are of a higher 'calibre', as seen by their marks, cause u said the higerh teh calibre of students, the better its cales - which is a fair statement - but my point is this does nto match the facts
as i said above, if the chem marks are higer than the 4U raw marks, shouldnt chem scale higerh than 4u, cause students are of a 'higher calibre'????
u see my point, the board KNOWS some subjects are harder than others, and scales accordingly, they deem a 60% in MX2 as a much higher achievement than 60% in chem, yet wat u r saying is that courses are scaled based on how well ppl go
ie. they do judge the calibre of students as u said, but HOW they judge it is not based purely on performance in the exams and the avge raw marks, the board understands the fact that some subjects are harder than others and use this as part of their determination of scaling
Yeah, I do see your point but meh, I don't really know even if anything we are on about make sense.