UAI's of around 79-84? (2 Viewers)

[Shuter]

I said i felt a little bit ripped off, not completely roarted, don't get stuck into me ! gee!
And you know what.. you can't go comparing the difficulty of different subject. Each subject has it's difficulties and easy stuff.. It's a bunch of crap when people go comparing subjects. Seriously... one cannot help if they are not naturally gifted in the science/maths area, and shouldn't be penalised because of this.

Yes they should, not everyone is equal and we should award those who are intellectually better.

 

[Cactus]

Yes they should, not everyone is equal and we should award those who are intellectually better.

Only the stupid ppl make comments about how scaling sucks.....Notice the smart ones are the ones with the good UAIs, therefore they feel like the system works.

Anyway if you really are one of the non maths/science ppl, but feel you are gifted within the arts, then why do you care abt scaling. Because you are poor with maths, you dont understand the scaling process.

 

[SweetSeasons]

cactus, their should be scaling it should just be done with a bit more common sense.
I think I did alright 78.5 is an alright UAI. And I did pretty well in biology and math, if i had of kept chemistry I would of gotten a low band 4.

But I took my year advisors advice and dropped chem. as he told me if I got in the 90's for industrial technology it would benifit my UAI and not decrease it. Shows how much he knew.

Scaling should mean next to shit if you get 90+ because it's not friggin easy to get a band 6 in any subject.

 

[ur_inner_child]

English Advanced - 84
English Extension 1 - 39/50
English Extension 2 - 46/50 (uh hello, top band)
Visual Arts - 87 (91 exam mark... damn scaliness)
Music 2 - 77 (probably what nailed it down)
Music Extension - 40/50
Earth and Environmental Science - 81

Pretty high results, not so glamorous uai

81.35

Didn't expect THAT but I'm cool with it.

 

[iambored]

And you know what.. you can't go comparing the difficulty of different subject. Each subject has it's difficulties and easy stuff.. It's a bunch of crap when people go comparing subjects. Seriously... one cannot help if they are not naturally gifted in the science/maths area, and shouldn't be penalised because of this.

of course you should, compare 4u maths with general maths, hell if there was no scaling everyone who did advanced, 3u and 4u maths would have done general and caned it

 

[Shuter]

Visual Arts - 87 (91 exam mark... damn scaliness)

Moderation or assessments was clearly the word you were searching for, not scaling.

 

[Cactus]

cactus, their should be scaling it should just be done with a bit more common sense.
I think I did alright 78.5 is an alright UAI. And I did pretty well in biology and math, if i had of kept chemistry I would of gotten a low band 4.

But I took my year advisors advice and dropped chem. as he told me if I got in the 90's for industrial technology it would benifit my UAI and not decrease it. Shows how much he knew.

Scaling should mean next to shit if you get 90+ because it's not friggin easy to get a band 6 in any subject.

You obviously dont understand the scaling process and I am not going to attempt to explain. Its not like it's some dude at UAC goes 'yeah I reckon 4u maths was exactly twice as hard as Food Tech so it will scale 2 more............'

 

[SweetSeasons]

You are obviously a cock head.
I have the basic concept of how scaling works down, and i think it I got screwed over, a mark of 90 getting scaled down to a mark of 66, that is shit. My industrial tech teacher said even kids would got 100 got scaled down to 76 or what ever. I think it's retarded. Excellent marks, like 100 in any subject should not get scaled down.

 

[Cactus]

You are obviously a cock head.

Obviously. However, lets move on from the childish name calling. I refer you to the UAI and scaling information on this site. The scaled mean for Industrial Technology in 2003 was -8.1 and it was capped at 39.7/50 in 2002. Obviously this is the reason why you are complaining.

I will for your benefit point out the flaw in your argument:

Excellent marks, like 100 in any subject should not get scaled down.

You're talking about the Aligned Final HSC mark, of 100. However before the HSC exams are sat, a committe sits and decides how difficult they beleive the paper is, and what raw marks a student should obtain to be in Band 6, 5 or whatever. They make this judgement based on opinion. My point is, it is possible for every student in the state to get in Band 6. Do you believe that if the committe makes a mistake, and align the exam far too easy, that they should have an advantage over all the other students whose exams were aligned fairly? Obviously not.

This is why we have scaling. You were not ripped off. You just didnt play the system right. It's all a numbers game and the people who realise that are the ones who get ahead. I don't agree with it, I don't think thats how it should be, but thats how it is.

Personally i think it sucks that Art and Music scale poorly, compared to Physics and Maths.........

 

[em_87]

My subjects don't scale well, (well in the past they haven't) but since i went alright in all of em (band 5's for all except one band 6 and one band 4) i got a pretty decent UAI... well, i thought so anyway...

Adv Eng= 78
Eco = 87
Community & Family Studies = 90
Geo = 83
General Maths = 82
RE (1 unit) = 39/50

UAI = 85.65

My UAI, kinda matches my marks if you have a look at it - its between 80-90 where most of my subjects are, and the 90 cancelled out my shocka 78 in english. (my RE didn't count...)

 

[Shuter]

My subjects don't scale well, (well in the past they haven't) but since i went alright in all of em (band 5's for all except one band 6 and one band 4) i got a pretty decent UAI... well, i thought so anyway...

Adv Eng= 78
Eco = 87
Community & Family Studies = 90
Geo = 83
General Maths = 82
RE (1 unit) = 39/50

UAI = 85.65

My UAI, kinda matches my marks if you have a look at it - its between 80-90 where most of my subjects are, and the 90 cancelled out my shocka 78 in english. (my RE didn't count...)

What the hell, again compare to my marks.

Adv Eng: 77 (78)
Eco: 85 (87)
Biology: 88; Com and Fam: 90
Physics: 84; Geo: 83
(2 unit) Maths Ext 1: 65*; General Maths: 82

*Equivalent to a Band 5 Advanced Maths.

So we've got pretty similar marks except a few of mine are harder subjects and that only put my UAI 1.25 above yours. I could of bludged off and done general maths and cained it and got a better UAI, bahhhhh.

 

[em_87]

Yeh, subjects play a HUGE role in your UAI... if id known how much a difference, i wouldn't have dropped maths in yr 11 and gone to g.maths... BIG MISTAKE.... and i prolly woulda done something thing other then CAFS coz i really didn't care or like the subject...

 

[nessie_lee]

Yes they should, not everyone is equal and we should award those who are intellectually better.

Yes, but you should also give everyone a fair go.. One shouldn't be penalised/ scaled down in a subject such as Society and culture because they are good at it. They shouldn't have marks that they rightfully earnt taken off them! it's a bunch of crap...

I agree with scaling in subjects which have different levels, such as Maths and English. I mean i know you cannot possibly compare someone who got 97 in 4u to one who got that in General Maths, it's silly.. that's when i think the scaling system is relevant.. but not when comparing a subject like Society and culture to Chemistry, or Biology.

 

[Shuter]

Yes, but you should also give everyone a fair go.. One shouldn't be penalised/ scaled down in a subject such as Society and culture because they are good at it. They shouldn't have marks that they rightfully earnt taken off them! it's a bunch of crap...

Yes they should, the UAI's are determined by, and on behalf of the uni's, they looks for what they find valuable/useful skills and assign a greater weight to people who possess these. It's great that you're good at society and culture and all, but in reality these skills are pretty useless, and the uni judges that accordingly.

that's when i think the scaling system is relevant.. but not when comparing a subject like Society and culture to Chemistry, or Biology.

Bio it's probably similar because they're both easy, but compared to Physics or chem? You ever tried to grasp and solve problems involving relativity and simulty? That's a hell of alot harder than analysing some people's lives.

 

[Maximus]

English Standard - 67
IPT - 84
Mathematics - 93
Mathematics Ext 1 - 46
SDD - 88
Japanese Beginners - 89

UAI 2004 - 84.7

 

[Idyll]

Yes, but you should also give everyone a fair go.. One shouldn't be penalised/ scaled down in a subject such as Society and culture because they are good at it. They shouldn't have marks that they rightfully earnt taken off them! it's a bunch of crap...

I agree with scaling in subjects which have different levels, such as Maths and English. I mean i know you cannot possibly compare someone who got 97 in 4u to one who got that in General Maths, it's silly.. that's when i think the scaling system is relevant.. but not when comparing a subject like Society and culture to Chemistry, or Biology.

the scaling system doesn't take into account the content of the actual subject. the nerds at uac don't sit there and go, "bah, society and culture, who needs that rubbish. scale it down the toilet. that'll show 'em!" It's just based on the performance of students who did society and culture in all their other subjects. i.e. society and culture would scale extremely well, if all the candidates did very well in all their other subjects.

there is the potential for 4u maths to scale terribly. it's just that the trend is for pretty capable students to do 4u maths. society and culture's candidate isn't quite so strong, thus the scaling isn't quite so good.

the whole idea is to be able to measure overall student performance, and the only way to do that is by being able to compare performance in quite different subjects. whether this is valid or not is entirely up for debate.

essentially, the scaling system is saying that it's a lot harder to get 90 in 4u maths that it is to get 90 in society and culture (which it probably is, although i've only done one of the former, so i'm not really in a position to comment), and thus, the student who got 90 in 4u maths gets a much higher scaled mark.

besides, if you do well enough in a course, your mark remains relatively unaffected by scaling. kill the society and culture course and your achievement will be recognised to the same extent as the achievement of someone who kills the physics course.

whether or not society should attempt to provide a measure of overall student performance is debatable, but up until now, no-ones come up with a better way to manage university admissions.

 

[PookieMonster]

thats right im smarter than u all

 

[mathock]

4u maths 69
3u maths 64
physics 70
chem 71
adv eng 76
eng ext 36/50

uai 80.05

im pretty disappointed, i thought my combination of subjects would have given me some more boosting... dont get me wrong, i bummed out pretty bad, but i got slaughtered with the uai :-( was hoping for 85 to get into b of science at sydney uni

 

[adamgatt]

I feel i was a bit hard done by. I've compared my marks to plenty of my mates, and even people who have posted on here and i still think i should have ranked a bit better, perhaps around 83 or so. Anyway, i got 80.90 with these marks.

Senior Science 90
IPT 89
Indus Tech 88
Adv Eng 82
2 unit Math 70

UAI 80.9

 

[Shuter]

I feel i was a bit hard done by. I've compared my marks to plenty of my mates, and even people who have posted on here and i still think i should have ranked a bit better, perhaps around 83 or so. Anyway, i got 80.90 with these marks.

Senior Science 90
IPT 89
Indus Tech 88
Adv Eng 82
2 unit Math 70

UAI 80.9

There's your problem, combined with the crappy subjects.